# MISC | Train Toilets



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

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 uke:

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In any case, let us know: do rail companies in your company have rolling stock with so outdated washrooms?


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

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?


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

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?


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

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:


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> 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.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

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


----------



## Fargo Wolf (Oct 23, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> 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...uke:


----------



## sergiogiorgini (Jun 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

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.


----------



## sergiogiorgini (Jun 28, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> newer NS stock that has closed toilet flushing systems


Which stock would that be?


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

sergiogiorgini said:


> 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.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

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

Trains in Malaysia never had something like this


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Amtrak's older trains do it


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Skyprince said:


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


*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.










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


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> *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.
> ...


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


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


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


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).


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> 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 hno:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

k.k.jetcar said:


> 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!



Fargo Wolf said:


> 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.



sergiogiorgini said:


> 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).


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> *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...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

g.spinoza said:


> 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.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> *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)


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

gincan said:


> 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.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Slagathor said:


> 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.


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

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?


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

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)?


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Apoc89 said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

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.


----------



## DarkLoki (May 4, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

DarkLoki said:


> 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)


----------



## rheintram (Mar 5, 2008)

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.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.



Suburbanist said:


> 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:


----------



## Stainless (Jun 7, 2009)

Apoc89 said:


> 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?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

rheintram said:


> 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.



Apoc89 said:


> 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.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> 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?


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

>>> 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 ???


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ 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.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> 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?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Teach said:


> 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.)


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

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.


----------



## AlexNL (May 27, 2010)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

AlexNL said:


> 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.


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> 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...


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

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?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> 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.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> 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).



Suburbanist said:


> (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...)


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> (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 

/sorry for the offtopic


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

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...


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

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....


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

thun said:


> 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).


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> 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.


----------



## Fargo Wolf (Oct 23, 2009)

Nexis said:


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


At least it only showed ass wipe. He COULD hav actually taken a s**t and got that on camera as well... :lol: :hilarious



♪♫ ♪ ♫ CiNnAmOn ♪♫ ♫;63234293 said:


> 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. 


TedStriker said:


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


*THIS!!!!* :rofl:



TedStriker said:


> 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.



TedStriker said:


> ^^
> 
> 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.



Coccodrillo said:


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


To quote Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit: "Slide under" :lol: :rofl:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Fargo Wolf said:


> 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).


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

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

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


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

The squat toilet's come far, eh?


reva said:


>


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)




----------



## steple (May 1, 2010)

If you're actually interested in technology of train toilets, there is a video of Swiss Federal Railway SBB CFF FFS showing some detailed aspects.

Most of the modern trains are equipped with so called bio-reactors, which only have to be emptied every 60 to 120 days, compared to 3 to 5 days for a simple tank. These bio-reactors are working in a similar way to a wastewater treatment plant, the cleaned liquids are released to the tracks.

See from 3:50 (only in German)


----------

