daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 5th, 2010, 10:25 AM   #21
Coccodrillo
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 7,188
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fargo Wolf View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
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.
__________________
1.6.2016: Basistunnel!

für Güter die Bahn ~ pour vos marchandises le rail ~ chi dice merci dice ferrovia
Coccodrillo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 5th, 2010, 10:41 AM   #22
adam_india
Registered User
 
adam_india's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,166
Likes (Received): 809

:delete:
__________________
Citizen of the world

Last edited by adam_india; September 5th, 2010 at 11:01 AM.
adam_india no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 01:22 PM   #23
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

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!!!
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 02:54 PM   #24
Apoc89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 55

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.
Apoc89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 03:05 PM   #25
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,405
Likes (Received): 6008

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). 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 high speed trains will have closed-circuit toilets.

The DD-AR 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) 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 trains will be retired soon. I don't know what will happen to toilets in the older VIRM generations and the ICM 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

Last edited by Slagathor; September 5th, 2010 at 03:46 PM.
Slagathor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 06:11 PM   #26
Dahlis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 107

Really? No trains in sweden does that.
Dahlis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 07:51 PM   #27
aab7772003
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 773
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by goschio View Post
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.
aab7772003 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 08:45 PM   #28
Martin S
Registered User
 
Martin S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,145
Likes (Received): 3088

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.
Martin S no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 10:35 PM   #29
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,062
Likes (Received): 187

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 ?
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 10:50 PM   #30
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,084
Likes (Received): 283

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...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 11:00 PM   #31
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,084
Likes (Received): 283

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
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...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 11:04 PM   #32
Peloso
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Away from Macaronia
Posts: 1,173
Likes (Received): 245

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
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
__________________
Save Italy, fight the Macaroni
E(xtinction)=m(afia)c(reeps)²
Peloso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 11:13 PM   #33
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,062
Likes (Received): 187

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peloso View Post
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
Well I don't believe that it still is authorized officially but it still happens.
Internet is full of horror stories on the subject.
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2010, 11:36 PM   #34
sergiogiorgini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 1,878
Likes (Received): 888

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
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.
sergiogiorgini no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 07:41 AM   #35
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,052
Likes (Received): 8691

That's actually a very good point - why don't people complain about aeroplanes voiding human waste in flight?
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 08:20 AM   #36
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,742
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
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"...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 08:21 AM   #37
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,742
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin S View Post
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...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 12:48 PM   #38
♪♫ ♪ ♫ CiNnAmOn ♪♫ ♫
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cardedeu (Barcelona)
Posts: 24
Likes (Received): 0

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!
♪♫ ♪ ♫ CiNnAmOn ♪♫ ♫ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 01:24 PM   #39
NiGhtPiSH
Sofia Hardcore
 
NiGhtPiSH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sofia
Posts: 853
Likes (Received): 757

Quote:
Originally Posted by ♪♫ ♪ ♫ CiNnAmOn ♪♫ ♫ View Post
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.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
NiGhtPiSH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2010, 01:37 PM   #40
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,457
Likes (Received): 21141

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
That's actually a very good point - why don't people complain about aeroplanes voiding human waste in flight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
Well I don't believe that it still is authorized officially but it still happens.
Internet is full of horror stories on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
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
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu