On Nov 30, 12:42*pm, Ken Wheatley wrote:
On 2010-11-29 18:48:11 +0000, Bill Borland said:





In article
s.com, writes
On Nov 29, 3:27*pm, (Roy Badami) wrote:

A google search finds very little information about women-only waiting
rooms, but I did find one suggestion that they went out of favour
largely as a result of such concerns.

It used to be Ladies waiting room and General waiting room; I've never
seen a Gentlemen's waiting room; were there ever such things? *There
were also 1st and 3rd class waiting rooms, but that was before my
time. *There were also Ladies only compartments of course; I'm not
sure when they went out of use, but they were still around in about
the early '70s.
As recently as last year (and it may still be there) there was a
Ladies' Waiting Room on Plat 4 at Orpington, with the Ladies' toilet
opening off it. *What is annoying is that was no "General" waiting
room and that station is *cold*.
I think Ladies Only compartments lasted right up to the end of
compartment stock.

Surely not? The last I remember were on the GN suburbans prior to
electrification in 1976. Compartments lasted after that, even if you
discount corridor stock. What about the 302 stock, for instance? Some
compartments but no ladies-only.


Some BR design 416s had non-corridor compartments up till about 1994
or 1995, but nothing about ladies.

In message
, at
11:09:11 on Tue, 30 Nov 2010, MIG
remarked:
I think Ladies Only compartments lasted right up to the end of
compartment stock.

Surely not? The last I remember were on the GN suburbans prior to
electrification in 1976. Compartments lasted after that, even if you
discount corridor stock. What about the 302 stock, for instance? Some
compartments but no ladies-only.

Some BR design 416s had non-corridor compartments up till about 1994
or 1995, but nothing about ladies.

iirc the compartment EMUs on the line out of Liverpool St in the late
60's had a Ladies-only under the pantograph. So there might be only one
per train, depending on how many units.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
11:09:11 on Tue, 30 Nov 2010, MIG remarked:
I think Ladies Only compartments lasted right up to the end of
compartment stock.

Surely not? The last I remember were on the GN suburbans prior to
electrification in 1976. Compartments lasted after that, even if you
discount corridor stock. What about the 302 stock, for instance? Some
compartments but no ladies-only.

Some BR design 416s had non-corridor compartments up till about 1994
or 1995, but nothing about ladies.

iirc the compartment EMUs on the line out of Liverpool St in the late
60's had a Ladies-only under the pantograph.

Doesn't that make it a knickerograph?

tom

--
Any Christmas message which ends with "... everything's pointless
...." probably doesn't need sharing -- cleanskies

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2010\11\29 22:18, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:19:51 on
Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Roy Badami remarked:

Assuming that it's supposed to be safer for women travelling alone,
or something like that, then I don't see how that's actually going
to work in practice without staff to enforce it -- in which case
it's actually the presence of staff that makes the platform safer,
and not the single sex waiting room.

It's not going to stop an axe-murderer rushing in and doing his
worst, but there's quite a bit of social pressure for men not to use
the Ladies Waiting Room - much the same as not using the ladies
toilets.

Sure, but you've still not convinced me what (perceived) need such a
facility fulfills.

Keeps the ladies away from drunks and tramps.

Bloody good idea too. You have no idea how bothersome the drunks and
tramps find them.

Yeah, them hobo humpin' slobo babes.

Just don't tell Bojo.

tom

--
Any Christmas message which ends with "... everything's pointless
...." probably doesn't need sharing -- cleanskies

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Roland Perry wrote:

In message . li, at 22:18:04
on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Tom Anderson remarked:
Equality Act 2010 c29:

(1) A person (a service-provider) concerned with the provision of a
service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not)
must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not
providing the person with the service.

Followed by various other statements of the same idea. This law is new, but
it replaces, amongst other things, one from 1975 which i understand said
much the same thing.

I suspect that providing a ladies' waiting room but neither a gentlemen's
nor a general one *is* a breach of the act, but until someone brings an
action, we won't know, and it won't change. I imagine nobody being
discriminated against by the lack of provision of a small, cold room
adjacent to some public toilets for people of their gender is sufficiently
bothered about it to do so.

And what about places with only one gender of toilet? Is that a breach too.

I suppose it must be.

tom

--
Any Christmas message which ends with "... everything's pointless
...." probably doesn't need sharing -- cleanskies

In uk.transport.london message , Tue, 30
Nov 2010 08:55:45, Roland Perry posted:

And what about places with only one gender of toilet? Is that a breach
too.

I recall seeing such an installation in a grassy field in Norway with
three similar doors, all differently named. Two of the names obviously
represented what one expects.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 IE 8.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm.