London Euston has been officially named the capital's worst station for toilets, according to a new study that analysed thousands of TripAdvisor reviews from stations across the UK and Europe. The research, conducted by Dark Horse, found that 63% of reviews about Euston's facilities were negative, placing it eighth in the overall rankings for worst toilets.
Euston's toilets described as 'a disgrace'
Reviewers consistently described the station's loos as dirty, smelly and poorly maintained. One passenger branded the men's toilets 'a disgrace', while others complained about the general state of the facilities. The negative feedback highlights a persistent issue for travellers using one of London's busiest rail hubs.
Other major London stations also fared poorly. Both Waterloo and Liverpool Street recorded negative scores of 52%, with passengers reporting similar issues. A visitor to Paddington described the toilets as 'really gross', specifically mentioning sticky floors and unclean toilet seats. The Eurostar terminal at St Pancras International also attracted criticism, although its neighbour King's Cross performed better in the rankings.
Victoria Station shines with 'spotless' facilities
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Victoria Station was deemed to have the best toilets in the capital. Just 23% of reviews about its facilities were negative, with some passengers praising the toilets as 'spotless' and noting that they were cleaned regularly. Victoria's success may be linked to its recent decision to scrap the payment system for its toilets, a move that appears to have improved passenger satisfaction.
The research also revealed that a major source of frustration for travellers was having to pay to use the toilets. Around 65% of all negative reviews mentioned the charge to access facilities, despite passengers having already purchased train tickets. This issue was particularly prevalent at stations that still charge for toilet use.
London stations still better than European counterparts
Despite Euston's poor performance, London stations in general were found to be better than those elsewhere in Europe. Cities such as Milan, Glasgow and Manchester each received worse overall scores in the rankings, suggesting that while London has room for improvement, it is not the worst offender on the continent.
Libby Mayfield, head of marketing at Dark Horse, commented on the findings: 'Millions of people will pass through the UK and Europe's major train stations this summer, hoping to enjoy the sights and sounds of a leisurely rail journey, but unfortunately this ranking reveals that along with delays and cancellations, anyone needing the loo will have to deal with an extra dose of unpleasantness.' She added: 'It's a reminder that doing the dirty work isn't easy or glamorous, but if you don't, your reputation ends up going down the toilet.'
Impact on travellers and station reputation
The findings underscore the importance of toilet facilities in shaping passenger experience. For stations like Euston, which handles millions of passengers annually, poor toilet maintenance can tarnish its reputation and deter travellers. The study's results come at a time when many are calling for better investment in station amenities, particularly as rail travel becomes more popular for both domestic and international journeys.
For passengers, the research serves as a practical guide: avoid Euston's toilets if possible, and head to Victoria for a more pleasant experience. However, the broader issue of charging for toilet access remains a contentious point, with many arguing that it unfairly penalises passengers who have already paid for their tickets.
