Motion sickness (and rail replacement buses)

[BRX]

I've always suffered from motion sickness - not as bad now as when I was a kid but it's guaranteed if I try to read anything or look at anything other than out of the window in a car, and the same (to a slightly lesser extent) in a bus.

Sometimes I'l feel a bit queazy on a bus even if I'm looking out the window.

And this is one of the reasons I'll always choose rail travel over other modes where possible.

It's also one reason that I'll try and avoid being put on rail replacement buses and am unhappy when no alternative is provided (for example, tickets not being accepted on alternative rail routes when there's disruption).

Am I in a very small minority here or is this not uncommon?

And do you think that (during unforeseen disruption) being prone to motion sickness should be accepted as a justification for taking a roundabout rail route to avoid a bustitution, when official policy is that tickets are only valid via the bus?

 

[phil1960]

I've always suffered from motion sickness - not as bad now as when I was a kid but it's guaranteed if I try to read anything or look at anything other than out of the window in a car, and the same (to a slightly lesser extent) in a bus.

Sometimes I'l feel a bit queazy on a bus even if I'm looking out the window.

And this is one of the reasons I'll always choose rail travel over other modes where possible.

It's also one reason that I'll try and avoid being put on rail replacement buses and am unhappy when no alternative is provided (for example, tickets not being accepted on alternative rail routes when there's disruption).

Am I in a very small minority here or is this not uncommon?

And do you think that (during unforeseen disruption) being prone to motion sickness should be accepted as a justification for taking a roundabout rail route to avoid a bustitution, when official policy is that tickets are only valid via the bus?

I very much doubt it. AFAIK the only exception is for passengers confined to a wheelchair. And in those cases often taxis are laid on which will have to be arranged via the TOC special assistance teams.

And in any case what would happen if your journey is impossible via any other rail route when the line is closed for engineering work?

Phil

 

[richa2002]

You're not alone. I can survive a rail replacement bus or taxi for 30 mins max but anything more and I'll try to find an alternative rail route, even if it takes a lot longer.

I was stranded in Ipswich once and booked a hotel rather than endure a taxi to London!

 

[BRX]

And in any case what would happen if your journey is impossible via any other rail route when the line is closed for engineering work?

Phil

In that situation - where it's notified well in advance - passengers can choose not to plan a journey on a day where there's no rail service where they want to go.

That's different from a situation where someone's planned a journey by rail which for whatever reason becomes impossible on the intended route after the tickets are booked, but which is possible to complete by an alternative rail route.

Say it is my return journey home that has become disrupted. I've planned a journey by rail, and it's possible for me to get home by rail even if not by the intended route. Is it reasonable for a TOC to tell me that I must nevertheless travel on a bus, if that is likely to make me feel unwell?

 

[The Prisoner]

My other half gets motion sickness as well and we paid for a new ticket back from Edinburgh on Monday after we were told we couldn't go back to the North West the way we had traveled up on Friday (via York) with a VT Advance as "acceptance had been withdrawn". She couldn't do 2.5 hours on a bus and (unfortunately) others can't too.

I accept the points that often buses are needed due to engineering, but that is pre-advised, and those who don't do buses will often see that and move/re-route their journey. We had booked before Storm Frank.

 

[ComUtoR]

Is it reasonable for a TOC to tell me that I must nevertheless travel on a bus, if that is likely to make me feel unwell?

Where is the line drawn ?

If I had a physical or mental disability and my journey was changed what rights do I have ?

When I make a journey by train my expectation is that if there is disruption that they will provide alternative transport by bus. I would say that it is my responsibility to make arrangements to that and if I suffered from motion sickness on buses then I would take my travel sickness tablets along with me.

If the TOC offered buses I would say that it becomes my choice not to travel.

Hopefully someone can give you a more technical answer. I would be interested to know if there was disruption and your journey was cancelled. Are you entitled to a refund if you didn't want to use the bus for any reason ?

 

[phil1960]

In that situation - where it's notified well in advance - passengers can choose not to plan a journey on a day where there's no rail service where they want to go.

That's different from a situation where someone's planned a journey by rail which for whatever reason becomes impossible on the intended route after the tickets are booked, but which is possible to complete by an alternative rail route.

Say it is my return journey home that has become disrupted. I've planned a journey by rail, and it's possible for me to get home by rail even if not by the intended route. Is it reasonable for a TOC to tell me that I must nevertheless travel on a bus, if that is likely to make me feel unwell?

The TOC may lay on buses when unplanned disruption takes place, but accept that might be not suitable for those say with cycles as well. They could offer you a refund or option even to delay your journey beyond the ticket validity in the hope that rail services are restored.

Understand about taking an alternative rail route which, when possible might work and staff could authorise your ticket on a case-by-case situation to go another way. But what happens if you are at say the end of a dead end line with no other trains running from that station, the line is suddenly closed and the only option is either a bus or not to travel?

Phil

 

[DarloRich]

in the real world i think you will be in a small group, here i would expect lots of people agreeing with you

 

[najaB]

And do you think that (during unforeseen disruption) being prone to motion sickness should be accepted as a justification for taking a roundabout rail route to avoid a bustitution, when official policy is that tickets are only valid via the bus?

I think it is acceptable if you have some form of 'doctor's note' to confirm the severity of the motion sickness. The reason being that the term 'motion sickness' can vary from people who get a little queasy through to people who are almost totally incapacitated by it. The former should get a polite version of "man up" while the latter should be allowed the same level of accommodation as other disabilities would accord.

 

[BRX]

But what happens if you are at say the end of a dead end line with no other trains running from that station, the line is suddenly closed and the only option is either a bus or not to travel?

Phil

Then I'd accept that the train company is unable to offer an alternative to me, and it's up to me to decide whether to cancel my trip or brace myself for a bus journey.

I'm talking here about situations where people are being told they have to take a bus even when an alternative rail route exists.

 

[Skimble19]

I'm staff at a London based TOC and must admit I get it too on coach journeys of more than around 20/30mins so dread it when I spot we have bustitution.. Luckily just lately our lot seem to be using more standard buses than coaches which for some reason I can sit on for ages and be completely fine.

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm talking here about situations where people are being told they have to take a bus even when an alternative rail route exists.

Why aren't the TOC offering the alternative route ? Is there something preventing them from doing so ?

If there is an alternative route then what is preventing you from taking it ? Would you be prepared to pay for the alternative route or should that be offered for free ?

 

[BRX]

Where is the line drawn ?

That's a difficulty, of course.

Motion sickness is an issue for me. There are various other reasons (medical and otherwise) for which people decide to travel by train rather than bus. Accesibility of toilets, say. The ability to stand up and move around. Travelling with cycles. Ability to do work.

Some of these things, it's reasonable to say, sorry, there is unforeseen disruption so you'll just have to accept journey is not going to offer you all the facilities you expected when you bought your ticket.

For others (those related to medical conditions or mobility issues) it's less reasonable.

Either way the more options you can offer the passenger, the more likely you are to meet people's needs. They may have to choose between going on a bus with only a minor delay to their journey, and taking an alternative rail route which might take much longer, or on which a seat can't be guaranteed. That seems a reasonable choice to give someone.

My feeling is that the railway should always be aiming to avoid putting people on buses where it can, because when people buy a train ticket they are choosing the train over other transport modes. They are not just paying to get from A to B, they are paying to get from A to B by train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm talking here about situations where people are being told they have to take a bus even when an alternative rail route exists.

But how do you define an "alternative" rail route?

The Tyne Valley is closed due to a landslip, with buses replacing trains Newcastle/Prudhoe-Hexham/Carlisle, depending on service and time of day. There's an "alternative" rail route- via York and Lancaster- but clearly it would be unreasonable to expect TOCs to allow travel that way.

Talking about the WCML, the direct line between Carlisle and Edinburgh is closed. There's no alternative route between Carlisle and Edinburgh. Therefore putting people on to buses for that leg of the journey is reasonable. If your ticket takes you through Carlisle then you have to use the replacement bus.

 

[BRX]

Why aren't the TOC offering the alternative route ? Is there something preventing them from doing so ?

If there is an alternative route then what is preventing you from taking it ? Would you be prepared to pay for the alternative route or should that be offered for free ?

People may be prevented from using an alternative rail route by TOCs refusing to accept off-route tickets issued by other TOCs. As is currently happening around the Carlisle/Glasgow closure.

No I don't think people should be asked to pay extra. They have already paid to get from A to B. In times of disruption they shouldn't be expected to pay extra for completing their journey using an alternative rail route any more than they should be expected to pay extra to complete it on a rail replacement bus.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No I don't think people should be asked to pay extra. They have already paid to get from A to B. In times of disruption they shouldn't be expected to pay extra for completing their journey using an alternative rail route

Should someone with a Prudhoe-Hexham single be allowed to travel via Newcastle, York, Leeds, Manchester and Carlisle?

If not, why not?

 

[trainophile]

Some RRBs won't allow items of luggage larger than what can be carried on your lap. Very many people travel with varying sizes of suitcase. What are they supposed to do?

 

[BRX]

But how do you define an "alternative" rail route?

The Tyne Valley is closed due to a landslip, with buses replacing trains Newcastle/Prudhoe-Hexham/Carlisle, depending on service and time of day. There's an "alternative" rail route- via York and Lancaster- but clearly it would be unreasonable to expect TOCs to allow travel that way.

Talking about the WCML, the direct line between Carlisle and Edinburgh is closed. There's no alternative route between Carlisle and Edinburgh. Therefore putting people on to buses for that leg of the journey is reasonable. If your ticket takes you through Carlisle then you have to use the replacement bus.

We're getting a bit off topic as this thread was intended to be a question about the general principle. But there is an alternative rail route via Dumfries and Glasgow that I would consider reasonable.

I'm not sure that I'd necessarily consider the York route "unreasonable". The extra travel time would mean that *most* passengers would not even consider doing this and take the bus instead. So it seems unlikely that other services would be overwhelmed by an extra volume of passengers. But in the absence of alternatives, someone who would feel ill on the bus might decide that the extended journey time is the lesser of two evils. The trains are running anyway, there are probably free seats anyway and if there aren't then that passenger might have to accept that they won't get one. I don't really see a good reason *not* to allow someone to take this route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should someone with a Prudhoe-Hexham single be allowed to travel via Newcastle, York, Leeds, Manchester and Carlisle?

If not, why not?

Reductio ad absurdum. In principle, yes. In practice, almost no-one would want to do this, because that single journey would be very short. As others have said, if you suffer from motion sickness there's a maximum journey time that you can generally tolerate and I'd expect this journey would fall within that for me.

This is of course an extreme example. It would be unreasonable for the passenger to automatically assume their ticket would be accepted on that alternative route. The way to resolve it would be for the passenger to explain to rail staff the reason they coudn't use the bus. Then for the rail staff to offer the best alternative that would take account of that passenger's special needs. Hypothetically, the alternative route by rail could be offered once all other options were ruled out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We're getting a bit off topic as this thread was intended to be a question about the general principle.

Yeah, I know, my point is more about where you draw the line. Reductio ad absurdum. You can normally find an alternative rail route between any two stations if you look far enough afield. How far should the flexibility go? I'm obviously using an extreme example in using a Prudhoe-Hexham ticket via Manchester, but it is an alternative route.

 

[ComUtoR]

No I don't think people should be asked to pay extra. They have already paid to get from A to B.

I tend to agree. The TOC isn't asking them to pay extra and is offering a valid alternative route for free.

In times of disruption they shouldn't be expected to pay extra for completing their journey using an alternative rail route any more than they should be expected to pay extra to complete it on a rail replacement bus.

There is an issue here where the alternative route isn't really an alternative for that TOC. If another TOC decides not to accept tickets then that is totally understandable. Why should they shoulder the cost of travel and additional passenger loads for no compensation ? Whilst it is an alternative route for the passenger due to the ticket complications it is not a valid alternative route.

There is nothing stopping you from taking that alternative route. Yes, you may have to pay but that is the unfortunate consequence of your motion sickness. Fortunately you may be in a better position that others as can medicate. Buses are provided on such a regular basis in times of disruption that you should either be prepared for that and take some medication if that situation arises or seek an alternative form of transport altogether.

 

[martinB]

But how do you define an "alternative" rail route?

The Tyne Valley is closed due to a landslip, with buses replacing trains Newcastle/Prudhoe-Hexham/Carlisle, depending on service and time of day. There's an "alternative" rail route- via York and Lancaster- but clearly it would be unreasonable to expect TOCs to allow travel that way.

Talking about the WCML, the direct line between Carlisle and Edinburgh is closed. There's no alternative route between Carlisle and Edinburgh. Therefore putting people on to buses for that leg of the journey is reasonable. If your ticket takes you through Carlisle then you have to use the replacement bus.

Why is it clearly unreasonable? No passenger would choose to travel that way without good cause: its longer, more changes, etc. The marginal cost of carrying the additional passenger over the additional distance can not be great although I appreciate there would be some fixed administration overheads. However, it would do wonders in assisting customers in particular distress.

 

[Antman]

I've always suffered from motion sickness - not as bad now as when I was a kid but it's guaranteed if I try to read anything or look at anything other than out of the window in a car, and the same (to a slightly lesser extent) in a bus.

Sometimes I'l feel a bit queazy on a bus even if I'm looking out the window.

And this is one of the reasons I'll always choose rail travel over other modes where possible.

It's also one reason that I'll try and avoid being put on rail replacement buses and am unhappy when no alternative is provided (for example, tickets not being accepted on alternative rail routes when there's disruption).

Am I in a very small minority here or is this not uncommon?

And do you think that (during unforeseen disruption) being prone to motion sickness should be accepted as a justification for taking a roundabout rail route to avoid a bustitution, when official policy is that tickets are only valid via the bus?

I don't wish to sound unsympathetic but what can any TOC reasonably be expected to do? And generally speaking I think tickets are normally valid on any reasonable alternative rail route although there might be some argument about what is and isn't a reasonable alternative route.

When I've done rail replacement work I have occasionally had similar complaints from people about travel sickness and that they wouldn't have undertaken the journey if they knew they would be turfed off the train and onto a bus. I tried to help them as best I could but there's obviously no simple solution.

 

[BRX]

There is an issue here where the alternative route isn't really an alternative for that TOC. If another TOC decides not to accept tickets then that is totally understandable. Why should they shoulder the cost of travel and additional passenger loads for no compensation ?

When things (which are outside the control of the TOCs) go wrong the expectation should be that everyone is going to have to shoulder some of the consequences. Passengers have to accept that their journeys are going to be delayed and comlpeted in a way that they did not plan for. TOCs likewise should have to accept that they are going to have to carry some additional load, whether or not their own services are the ones which are being disrupted.

If this basic principle isn't written into the terms of franchises then it should be.

I don't care how the TOCs and their accountants then sort out - between themselves - the costs incurred. The system should be set up in such a way that who runs what train isn't something the passenger needs to worry about when things go wrong.

The passenger's got a rail ticket from A to B and their service has been cancelled. There is another rail route to their destination. In what kind of a crazy set-up do we then say it doesn't make sense to allow them to use it? Only in one where we are more worried about the financial burden on commercial companies who entered into contracts to run services in the knowledge that there was a risk of this, than we are about the consequences for the passenger.

 

[Antman]

When things (which are outside the control of the TOCs) go wrong the expectation should be that everyone is going to have to shoulder some of the consequences. Passengers have to accept that their journeys are going to be delayed and comlpeted in a way that they did not plan for. TOCs likewise should have to accept that they are going to have to carry some additional load, whether or not their own services are the ones which are being disrupted.

If this basic principle isn't written into the terms of franchises then it should be.

I don't care how the TOCs and their accountants then sort out - between themselves - the costs incurred. The system should be set up in such a way that who runs what train isn't something the passenger needs to worry about when things go wrong.

The passenger's got a rail ticket from A to B and their service has been cancelled. There is another rail route to their destination. In what kind of a crazy set-up do we then say it doesn't make sense to allow them to use it? Only in one where we are more worried about the financial burden on commercial companies who entered into contracts to run services in the knowledge that there was a risk of this, than we are about the consequences for the passenger.

I totally agree with you and in practice that does seem to be generally what happens, for example with the current Bexleyheath line closure tickets are being accepted on buses, tube and DLR.

 

[misterredmist]

If there is an alternative route then what is preventing you from taking it ? Would you be prepared to pay for the alternative route or should that be offered for free ?

I think that's the crux of the matter ....

 

[BRX]

What logic arrives at the conclusion that it's fair to ask the passenger to pay extra to take a roundabout rail route instead of a bus?

Does the passenger get anything extra compared to what they originally paid for? No, they don't. They get to their destination, but later than either their original itenerary or than if they'd taken the bus, and possibly without the benefit of seat reservations which they originally had.

Is it likely that the marginal cost (to the rail companies collectively) of transporting the passenger by rail, on services which are running anyway, is hugely greater than the marginal cost of transporting them by bus? I don't think so.

Or is the reasoning that the passenger should compensate the rail companies for any additional expense resulting from events outside of those companies' control? If so, then why not ask the passenger to pay for the replacement buses as well?

 

[ComUtoR]

Passengers have to accept that their journeys are going to be delayed and completed in a way that they did not plan for.

But you aren't accepting that.

If this basic principle isn't written into the terms of franchises then it should be.

I'd happily accept that any new franchise agreement could include such a clause but then I would happily accept the consequences of that kind of clause.

I don't care how the TOCs and their accountants then sort out - between themselves - the costs incurred. The system should be set up in such a way that who runs what train isn't something the passenger needs to worry about when things go wrong.

Again, I don't disagree that the principle of passengers going from A to B should be the priority but you are talking about a massive shake up of the ticketing system. From looking in the fares forum I do see that many tickets are valid by various routes. It would be worth asking the ticket offices if the ticket you held was valid by an alternative route.

As to the costs incurred then its just another cost that will invariably get passed on to the passenger in the long term. The I don't care attitude serves little purpose and as usual the issue is far deeper than money. If your issue is one of disability and suitability during disruption then surely that needs to be addressed first. Otherwise its nothing more than a selfish rant.

The passenger's got a rail ticket from A to B and their service has been cancelled. There is another rail route to their destination.

I travel by rail and my preference when buying my tickets is to get one where it is not limited to a specific TOC. IF offered the choice I prefer to make more flexible arrangements. Therefore when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing I have options.

In what kind of a crazy set-up do we then say it doesn't make sense to allow them to use it? Only in one where we are more worried about the financial burden on commercial companies who entered into contracts to run services in the knowledge that there was a risk of this, than we are about the consequences for the passenger.

I personally couldn't care about the cost to the companies but I do worry that people seem to have an automatic sense of entitlement. I travel by train out of choice. I choose to travel and choose to accept the restrictions is has. When I buy ANY service I have to accept that there will be limitations but I make that choice. I don't buy a service and then make demands outside of what is expected.

When I travel by train knowing that a bus may be offered as an alternative I don't see it as any fault or responsibility of the TOC to make specific arrangements for me because I don't travel well on buses. If it happened on a regular basis then I would seriously take a look at my own behaviour.

What logic arrives at the conclusion that it's fair to ask the passenger to pay extra to take a roundabout rail route instead of a bus?

Why should you get something that you haven't paid for ? why should someone else do it for free ?

To put it another way. If you got a cheaper ticket because the one you purchased was limited to TOC A and by ROUTE A. But due to a disruption you could potentially use TOC B and ROUTE B should that be free or are you prepared to accept that you can pay the difference in ticket price ?

If, by your logic, that any journey should be permitted. Is it then reasonable for a TOC to no longer sell a restricted ticket ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that's the crux of the matter ....

Part of the problem is that this issue mainly afflicts Advance tickets, and often the passenger must pay a hefty walk-up fare (or even split tickets) to take the alternative.

 

[najaB]

When I travel by train knowing that a bus may be offered as an alternative I don't see it as any fault or responsibility of the TOC to make specific arrangements for me because I don't travel well on buses. If it happened on a regular basis then I would seriously take a look at my own behaviour.

I agree with most of what you've said, but hark back to my earlier post - there are some people who 'don't travel well by bus' and there are others who are able to travel by train but are almost incapacitated if they travel by bus. The latter group I would say are entitled to travel by an alternative rail route if one exists as their choice to travel by train was out of necessity rather than convenience.

 

[ComUtoR]

The latter group I would say are entitled to travel by an alternative rail route if one exists as their choice to travel by train was out of necessity rather than convenience.

I would half agree.

I do believe if the bus was a genuine issue to travel then an alternative should be sought. My thoughts are that there are many people who cannot travel onwards by bus through no fault of their own. Mobility scooters are a barrier to using a bus for example.

I don't however agree specifically that use of rail travel is a necessity. It is preferable for sure and certainly the best option for some. It is still a choice to use the train.

My issues are what happens when we start to force TOC's to take any passenger on any ticket and that treating one passenger different to the rest is just as unfair. Should a person travelling with a cycle also be allowed to use the alternative route ?

What happens where there is no alternative other than a bus ?