Public lavatories on board

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aly Jones

Member
Iv'e seen a third class cabin photo with a toilet inside.

Where there 3 different kinds of 3rd class cabins, meanning cheap to expensive.?
If so,this could explain why a third class cabin had a toilet inside.
I always thought third class not having there own toilets.
 
I think this is the photograph showing a wash basin that looks like something else. This photograph, or at least one very similar to it, appeared in The Sun with the caption "A Room with a Loo".
135216.jpg
 
Don't be too surprised if somebody actually used it as a loo. A lot of people in the 3rd class had never even seen a flush toilet and it wasn't entirely unknown for them to just "do their business" wherever they felt they had to.

Where?

Let me put it this way: Watch your step!
 

Aly Jones

Member
>>Let me put it this way: Watch your step!<<

I heard the same thing, they use to just bend down any part of the floor and................
Gross!
 

Aly Jones

Member
Stanley. That could be it,looks kind of the same but the bowl was a bit lower. But still it looks similar to the one i saw.
 
>>That could be it,looks kind of the same but the bowl was a bit lower. <<

If what you saw was a toilet, I can gaurantee you it wasn't onboard Titanic since there were no en suite bathroom facilities in 3rd class on that ship.
 
...And I highly doubt even steerage (not to mention 2nd class!) would tolerate having an exposed toilet bowel in the middle of the room, right next to the beds.

*shudders in horror at the thought*
 
You might be surprised at what might be tolerated even in the upper classes, to say nothing of steerage. Chamber pots have been found in the debris field and they weren't used to do ones "business" out in the passageways.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
>>>>>>>I'm guessing, though, that chamber pots were still pretty much in use, considering the inadequate numbers of toilets aboard. (by today's standards) Chamber pots have been found in the debris field and they weren't used to do ones "business" out in the passageways. <<<<<<<

Ugh! I hope that even the most...er...uninformed of the steerage passengers used it for "No.1" only? Even that is a disgusting thought.

(Please do not be graphic in your answers if it was otherwise!)
 
The North Atlantic was rarely a millpond, so on most crossings there would have been at least a few passengers confined to their beds with mal-de-mer. That would have been the main reason for stocking a good supply of chamber pots. During rough crossings there were also 'cans' strategically placed in the corridors, but the stewards still spent a good deal of time wielding mop and bucket!

Sounds like you wouldn't have been a happy traveller a hundred years ago, Arun. There were still plenty of trains back then without corridors and therefore no toilet facilities, and this had been the norm not many years before. Men could equip themselves with a device based on a rubber tube and reservoir strapped to the leg, while ladies might carry am extra handbag containing a small chamber pot. When you gotta go (and where you gotta go) you gotta go. I'll spare you the diagrams.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
>>>.>Sounds like you wouldn't have been a happy traveller a hundred years ago, Arun. <<<<<<

If even one-third of what you say is true, you can bet both our lives that I would not have been a happy traveller back then. I confess that I am paranoid about hygiene and even in the best hotels the first thing I check is the loo. As long as there are clean toilet facilities, I don't mind roughing-it otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top