No toilets in Iarnród Éireann stations: legal?

gctest50

EdgeCase wrote: »

The DART is absolutely not privatised. It's owned and operated by Irish Rail / Iarnrod Éireann which is a state-owned company.

soon .................

gctest50

Whole lotta mines in Africa getting driverless trains

Whole load of train drivers that might like a change from the heat and dust n stuff

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

It's not rocket surgery to deduce what that post was about

DART is privatised.

British Rail was privatised in 1997

OMG the English tuk our toilets

nope fake news, it was in reference to thatcher's privatization of services, as the poster said.
actually the privatization of british rail started around 1994 and finished by 1997. implemented by john major's government, funnily enough thatcher was said to be dead against it. likely not for the reasons some would probably think though. but it's for another thread sometime.
the dart hasn't been privatized however he is correct in a sence in relation to his privatization mark as some practices from britain's privatized railway have come here which have not been good for the railway.

gctest50 wrote: »

soon .................

soon what? the irish government are as far as i know opposed to any form of privatization of the railway and tbh i can't blame them given how it turned out for the uk.

gctest50 wrote: »

Whole lotta mines in Africa getting driverless trains


Whole load of train drivers that might like a change from the heat and dust n stuff

they are industrial railways, generally away from people and likely have low speeds. whichever form their driverless operation takes, it's absolutely not comparible to ireland. also any drivers in the areas who may be effected if there are any, will probably find employment in their home country. in all honesty, i'm not sure what your point is, or how it is relevant to toilets at train stations, tbh.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are many of these such units (self-contained, self-cleaning, non-slip flooring) throughout the country already. Maintenance is required on a weekly basis to restock toilet paper and soap only.

Weekly maintenance? Have a think about why every public loo that you use has a cleaner's checklist on the back of the door requiring hourly sign off after the hourly cleaner's visit.

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

Toilets are not supposed to be money making, they are a service you provide to the customer.

However, attaching a marginal cost, 0.20 eur to each use is sufficient to prevent misuse. This has been shown to work in other examples such as shopping trollies with theft issues practically eliminated once the coin locks were added.

There are many of these such units (self-contained, self-cleaning, non-slip flooring) throughout the country already. Maintenance is required on a weekly basis to restock toilet paper and soap only.

A smarter option would be to make it 0.20 eur per use when used with a leap card or 0.50 eur if paying by coin, thereby increasing the number of benefits of owning a card.

The main reason shopping trolleys require a coin isn't to prevent theft, it's to prevent them from being abandoned all over shopping center car parks. Prior to the introduction of coins, shops had to employ staff just to gather up trolleys. If someone really wished to steal a trolley, a €1 coin is hardly going to be a deterrent.

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself regarding toilets not being money making but providing a service to the customer yet you suggest cash customers should have to pay 2.5 times what Leap card holders pay. Why should cash customers have to pay more if it's about service?

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

However, attaching a marginal cost, 0.20 eur to each use is sufficient to prevent misuse. This has been shown to work in other examples such as shopping trollies with theft issues practically eliminated once the coin locks were added.

because vandals can't or won't afford 50c.

as WA mentioned, not only was the idea of coin deposit shopping trollies introduced to reduce staff costs, it also has a key feature where you get your money back on completion of your mission. thus there's an impetus to return the trolley, but once you spend your penny in a public loo, there's no further incentive to act like an upstanding member of the public.

Del2005

magicbastarder wrote: »

as WA mentioned, not only was the idea of coin deposit shopping trollies introduced to reduce staff costs, it also has a key feature where you get your money back on completion of your mission. thus there's an impetus to return the trolley, but once you spend your penny in a public loo, there's no further incentive to act like an upstanding member of the public.

People are bad enough in toilets without adding a cost so they then fell that they have to make a mess to cover the cost.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Weekly maintenance? Have a think about why every public loo that you use has a cleaner's checklist on the back of the door requiring hourly sign off after the hourly cleaner's visit.

You need to go see one of these for yourself. They wash themselves after each use. They're cleaner than toilets you're ever likely to use

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself regarding toilets not being money making but providing a service to the customer yet you suggest cash customers should have to pay 2.5 times what Leap card holders pay. Why should cash customers have to pay more if it's about service?

No contradicting myself, simply carrying over the current advantages of using the leap card (discount for a service).

I carry spare 20 cent coins always in my wallet specially for use in these toilets when myself and my wife go walking. Would be a much better idea to extend the leap card to cover these.

We shouldn't provide playgrounds because "they" will just wreck them - Result - Some damage but minimal in comparison to the huge benefit to children and families.

We shouldn't provide bike schemes because "they" will nick every bike - Result - 2 bikes stolen in the first year, both recovered

We shouldn't provide greenways because "they" will use it them to travel through the countryside, rob houses and evade the guards - Result - No evidence this has occurred anywhere with the opposite being more likely, crime reduction due to there being more people out and about

We shouldn't build motorways because "they" will use them to travel around the country much faster allowing them to rob the rural folks - Result - There have been reports of a few robberies, while on the flipside, the mways have truly opened up the country, reduced travel times, and provided massive economic benefit

Just because there is a potential for someone not to behave doesn't mean you say tough luck to everyone else. That's not how society works.

Del.Monte

AllForIt wrote: »

This must be the most thanked stupidest comment I have ever read.

The idea that if one expects to have have toilet facilities then one must perpetually use every station in the country to have one is just bonkers.

Also if the station is not particularly busy I can't see how you think it would become a no-go area. I lived in Booterstown for years - there is no riff-raff in that area in stark contrast to most of the rest of Dublin so if any station could maintain a low maintenance toilet facility it would be Booterstown Dart station.

I'm appalled by ppl who would argue against the most basic of facilities.

Well thank you but the thrust of my argument seems to have gone over your head. Quite apart from the point about toilets, it comes down to use it or lose it - people who don't use public transport from one end of the year to the next expect it to be available with all bells and whistles on whatever rare occasion that they deign to use it deserve what they get.

Oh and as for riff-raff - I've seen same climbing in over the seawall at Booterstown to avoid paying fares and I suppose all the graffiti in the station and nearby area is done by outsiders.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well thank you but the thrust of my argument seems to have gone over your head. Quite apart from the point about toilets, it comes down to use it or lose it - people who don't use public transport from one end of the year to the next expect it to be available with all bells and whistles on whatever rare occasion that they deign to use it deserve what they get.

Which comes first, the bus shelter or the passengers waiting at the stop?

Investment into a service breeds uptake of that service, not the other way around

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

We shouldn't provide playgrounds because "they" will just wreck them - Result - Some damage but minimal in comparison to the huge benefit to children and families.

We shouldn't provide bike schemes because "they" will nick every bike - Result - 2 bikes stolen in the first year, both recovered

We shouldn't provide greenways because "they" will use it them to travel through the countryside, rob houses and evade the guards - Result - No evidence this has occurred anywhere with the opposite being more likely, crime reduction due to there being more people out and about

We shouldn't build motorways because "they" will use them to travel around the country much faster allowing them to rob the rural folks - Result - There have been reports of a few robberies, while on the flipside, the mways have truly opened up the country, reduced travel times, and provided massive economic benefit

Just because there is a potential for someone not to behave doesn't mean you say tough luck to everyone else. That's not how society works.

each one of those is a service rather than a supplementary service.
providing toilet facilities in a rail station where it would be likely that they'd be little used is hardly in any sensible manner comparable to motorway building?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

each one of those is a service rather than a supplementary service.
providing toilet facilities in a rail station where it would be likely that they'd be little used is hardly in any sensible manner comparable to motorway building?

If that were true, existing facilities in the major stations would also be going unused. This is not the case,therefore it is not a reason not to do it

Ray Bloody Purchase

I doubt there is a burgeoning amount of legislation relating to the requirement for a sh1tter in a train station. Maybe we should write it into the constitution?

'It must be every citizens inalienable right to drop a load off in a train station.'

Perhaps include a clause about a three wipe minimum too relating to the follow up paperwork?

Why would anyone in their right mind want to use a fcuking jacks in a train station? Train and bus stations are a magnet for all sorts of headbangers and dodgy going ons.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

If that were true, existing facilities in the major stations would also be going unused. This is not the case,therefore it is not a reason not to do it

not sure if i follow your logic - if facilities in outlying stations would be 'little used' (my comment), facilities in major stations would be 'unused' (your comment)?

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

Stalking yet another Boards' poster? You need to get over the OCD of hunting down a poster across the entire website when they don't accept your view in a discussion. Do you not find it just a tad creepy? Anyway, congratulations on finding another forum to bring your issues into. Any views on the actual topic?

It was actually trending on the front page of boards, for reasons unknown to man. I clicked on it before I saw that the bathroom conundrum was written about by yourself.

As my post might have indicated.

Stephen15

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If that were true, existing facilities in the major stations would also be going unused. This is not the case,therefore it is not a reason not to do it

Generally toilet facilities are only provided in larger manned stations the likes of Hueston, Connolly, Galway, Cork, Waterford, Drogheda etc. and some other stations which are manned but have less frequent trains meaning people will waiting longer. People will only be waiting a maximum of about 20 mins in a DART station so hardly nessecary. I do think there are some DART stations that justify toilets Dun Laoghaire for example could do with them but not a quieter station such as Booterstown.

Lord Glentoran

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

I doubt there is a burgeoning amount of legislation relating to the requirement for a sh1tter in a train station. Maybe we should write it into the constitution?

'It must be every citizens inalienable right to drop a load off in a train station.'

Perhaps include a clause about a three wipe minimum too relating to the follow up paperwork?

Why would anyone in their right mind want to use a fcuking jacks in a train station? Train and bus stations are a magnet for all sorts of headbangers and dodgy going ons.

I must admit that adopting the pose of Rodin’s Thinker and dropping off a few pungent logs into the foaming blue water beneath isn’t uppermost in my mind when visiting one of the nation’s railway stations. Getting the freak out of it on a train is.

Lumen

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Why would anyone in their right mind want to use a fcuking jacks in a train station? Train and bus stations are a magnet for all sorts of headbangers and dodgy going ons.

There are lots of people who need easy access to a toilet due to various ailments or physical conditions (e.g. IBS, post-childbirth incontinence).

I guess you're not one of them, yet. Don't worry, your day may come.

Wishbone Ash

Lumen wrote: »

There are lots of people who need easy access to a toilet due to various ailments or physical conditions (e.g. IBS, post-childbirth incontinence).

I guess you're not one of them, yet. Don't worry, your day may come.

Just curious but how do those people manage when they are sitting for 2 hours on the M50 on a weekday morning or evening? Thousands of people travelling but no toilet facilities.

Lumen

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Just curious but how do those people manage when they are sitting for 2 hours on the M50 on a weekday morning or evening? Thousands of people travelling but no toilet facilities.

There are various strategies, some of them more pleasant than others. I'm not sure you really want the details, do you?

veryangryman

Lumen wrote: »

There are various strategies, some of them more pleasant than others. I'm not sure you really want the details, do you?

Fairly sure ive seen videos of people getting out of car and weeing at the side of the road back when M50 was 2 lanes each way. Mainly lads, the odd bird.

Wishbone Ash

Lumen wrote: »

There are various strategies, some of them more pleasant than others...

That's my point!

Do they not utilise these strategies when travelling by other methods?

beauf

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...Just curious but how do those people manage when they are sitting for 2 hours on the M50 on a weekday morning or evening? Thousands of people travelling but no toilet facilities.

They avoid these kinda of situations. Do they couldn't work a job like that. They bring a bag for emergencies. They know all the possible pitstops along the route.

I guess most people wouldn't think about it. Unless you know someone in that situation or been in it yourself why would you.

But it's a problem for many.

beauf

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...Just curious but how do those people manage when they are sitting for 2 hours on the M50 on a weekday morning or evening? Thousands of people travelling but no toilet facilities.

They avoid these kinda of situations. They couldn't work a job like that created those situations. They bring a bag for emergencies. They know all the possible pitstops along the route.

I guess most people wouldn't think about it. Unless you know someone in that situation or been in it yourself why would you.

Del2005

Deleted User wrote: »

We shouldn't provide playgrounds because "they" will just wreck them - Result - Some damage but minimal in comparison to the huge benefit to children and families.

We shouldn't provide bike schemes because "they" will nick every bike - Result - 2 bikes stolen in the first year, both recovered

We shouldn't provide greenways because "they" will use it them to travel through the countryside, rob houses and evade the guards - Result - No evidence this has occurred anywhere with the opposite being more likely, crime reduction due to there being more people out and about

We shouldn't build motorways because "they" will use them to travel around the country much faster allowing them to rob the rural folks - Result - There have been reports of a few robberies, while on the flipside, the mways have truly opened up the country, reduced travel times, and provided massive economic benefit

Just because there is a potential for someone not to behave doesn't mean you say tough luck to everyone else. That's not how society works.

Install public toilet- Every unstaffed, and some staffed in airports etc, are filthy and a possible health hazard. Even the toilets in my job do be destroyed sometimes and we've cleaners in every hour. The automatic machines are a money pit and never work.

Jamie2k9

OP was the trip on the DART good or was it a case of you visiting to just use the public toilet had it been available.

beauf

Del2005 wrote: »

Install public toilet- Every unstaffed, and some staffed in airports etc, are filthy and a possible health hazard. Even the toilets in my job do be destroyed sometimes and we've cleaners in every hour. The automatic machines are a money pit and never work.

Take the NCT centres. Some are like cess pits.
Some are very decent.

Pearse Toliets are out of dingy drug movie.
The ones in Connolly and Heuston, at least are maintained well given the traffic that goes through them.

Why the difference. Can do/ Can't do attitude?

Its unreasonable for the smaller stations to have them. Fair enough, and the bigger stations will always be heavily used. Who isn't expecting that. But somewhere like Pearse which is a main station these no excuse for the terrible condition of them.

AndrewJRenko

Lumen wrote: »

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Why would anyone in their right mind want to use a fcuking jacks in a train station? Train and bus stations are a magnet for all sorts of headbangers and dodgy going ons.

There are lots of people who need easy access to a toilet due to various ailments or physical conditions (e.g. IBS, post-childbirth incontinence).

I guess you're not one of them, yet. Don't worry, your day may come.

While this is true (and I have been that soldier, caught short), it still doesn't mean that every DART station needs these facilities, given the practicalities involved.

Some UK councils pay local businesses to designate their existing loo as a public loo.