It is a hazard - which is why all trains built since about 1990 have toilets that dump into retention tanks which are pumped out at depots. Where possible the older stock is being retrofitted.
To use your Reading example it is only the older High Speed Trains that dump on the track - the Turbos, Voyagers and Adelantes are all fitted with tanks. Tanks may be fitted as part of the refurbishment program that is getting underway, but I'm not sure on that
2006-10-04 18:43:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
On the Older Trains toilets did used to dump the waste on the line. The new trains do not as there are now rules in place to protect the environment & the Health & Safety of track workers.
On older trains there used to be signs in the toilets saying that they should not be used when the train was stationary iin a station, but if you are desperate then you will ignor the signs. Also a train driver has enought to contend with in the cab, like AWS, TPWS, Signals, Bells and other warning systems and to lock the toilets when the train pull into the station would be a distraction. Then you also have to look at it like this that a person could become trapped in the toilet espacially if the driver forgets to unlock the doors.
2006-10-05 07:40:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Joolz of Salopia 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Trains don't flush. People do. Dumping along the right of way is relatively harmless, as the ballast roadbed makes a filter, just the same as a leach line in a septic system. Out there, you're on railroad property and probably shouldn't be there anyway.
Waste in the stations are not caused by an operating problem but by inconsiderate people who either do not know or don't care about the filth they deposit. Even my dogs relieve themselves out and away from their quarters.
2006-10-04 22:47:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Samurai Hoghead 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes it is disgusting! I think it is not possible to stop any passenger using toilet even though the train is in halt. I have seen this in railway stations.
Though the waste is biodegradable, its always unpleasant for passer-by and even to the railway guards checking the tracks. There should be an end to this practice and storage tanks must provided in all trains with proper chemical treatments.
Will our railway authorities do seriously something about this please?
2006-10-05 01:29:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by bert, dubai 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
they do this because toilet waste is biodegradable and therfore doesn't harm the environment. storage of waste would take up valuable space and very costly due to emptying. Why not have an auto system to unload? no need to hire staff, no need for cost of disposal, i mean how long would a toilet last? there isn't exactly a sewage system like grounded toilets!
i doubt they dump it at stations on purpose, maybe it is random, or automatic when full?
2006-10-04 21:57:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by dennis s 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Supposed to be put into retaining tanks now and pumped out at the depot but I suppose there are plenty of old rolling stock about without this option. It's against health and saftey regs. A mate that works on the railways says track workers now have to have heppatitas (sp) jabs !!!!
2006-10-05 08:50:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nowadays most trains have waste storage tanks, which automatically lock the toilet door when full. the tanks are then emptied at main terminal stations at end of journey.
2006-10-05 05:28:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Keefers 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you not noticed the BIG sign in the bog that says"DO NOT FLUSH WHILE IN STATION"
The reason they cannot store the **** in the train is that the private companies that were given the right to run our crap train service in this country are too tight to pay someone to empty the bogs, and they deem it would take too long.
2006-10-04 19:09:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by iusedtolooklikemyavatar 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
They only do that when passengers do not read the signs saying "Do not flush whilst in stations".
2006-10-04 19:15:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is more hygenic to dump it at a station than somewhere else in the bush
2006-10-04 19:10:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋