MISC | Train Toilets

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by thun

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.

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Nexis

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?

[thun]

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.

[AlexNL]

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 outdated...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...

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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.

[K_]

Originally Posted by Nexis

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.

[ArthurK]

Originally Posted by sergiogiorgini

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.

[RawLee]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by RawLee

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

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).

[K_]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by K_

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.

[Slagathor]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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.

[Suburbanist]

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

[Slagathor]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

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%.

[Teach]

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.

[RawLee]

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?

[thryve]

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.

[Apoc89]

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.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Apoc89

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.