Motion sickness (and rail replacement buses)

[notadriver]

Different vehicles have different forms of motion - a bus tends to have a lot of up and down motion and sharp acceleration and deceleration. Trains accelerate and decelerate smoothly and railways are engineered to minimise the effect of travelling round curves.

Personally I don't suffer from sickness on cars, trains or planes, but I do on boats (but only in bad weather, when just about everybody is affected)

As someone who does the occasional bit of rail replacement driving i'd like to think people wouldn't get travel sick on my vehicle because I'm a very good driver. Most of the guys I work with on rail replacement have no pride in their work because rail replacement is seen as rubbish work and they have no idea how to read the road ahead and drive smoothly.

 

[najaB]

As someone who does the occasional bit of rail replacement driving i'd like to think people wouldn't get travel sick on my vehicle because I'm a very good driver. Most of the guys I work with on rail replacement have no pride in their work because rail replacement is seen as rubbish work and they have no idea how to read the road ahead and drive smoothly.

No matter how carefully you drive, rail vehicles will always have lower G-forces than road due to the gentle gradients, wide-radius curves and lower acceleration/deceleration rates.

 

[BRX]

the VTEC diversions via Carlisle

Which diversions are these, and what was the RRB route they were an alternative to?

 

[fowler9]

In the line of work I am in (Mostly housing repairs) we get plenty of complaints from end users saying "But if I had a private landlord they would be expected to do X, Y and Z to sort this out much quicker". What they fail to recognise is that the end user would also pay a hell of a lot more for that service. Yes they have paid for a service (Or to get from A to B) but they have also paid for a certain level of service (Or a certain way of getting from A to B). This is not to say I have no sympathy for the OP, but it is a fact when living in a neoliberal, everything run as a business society.

 

[455driver]

I can't do anything about the fact that travelling on buses can make me feel unwell.

Uh yes you can, you can carry some travel sickness pills with you, it aint difficult and they aint heavy!

The railway industry as a whole could help out here by doing what they reasonably can to offer an alternative to RRBs for people who'd rather not use them. As I've tried to explain several times, I'm not asking for exceptional treatment, just to be given the option to take a longer diversionary route via services that are running anyway. The real world cost to the rail companies of allowing this is very low.

So you think 'the railway' should provide taxis for all the people who would rather not use a RRB, funnily enough most people would rather not use a RRB so that is going to be a lot of taxis!
Oh and that is asking for exceptional treatment!

In contrast, the cost to me of buying a new ticket travelling a longer route at short notice could be quite considerable, and potentially a lot more than the cost that I had budgeted for an already-planned trip.

The RRBs are normally well advertised, if you don't want to use them don't travel!

So why are you talking about "accepting responsibility"? Responsibility for what?

Responsibility for stopping yourself feeling ill on a bus, if I try and read a book, phone etc I feel sick, well guess what, when I am on a bus I don't do those things, I look out the window!

 

[BRX]

Uh yes you can, you can carry some travel sickness pills with you, it aint difficult and they aint heavy!

So you think 'the railway' should provide taxis for all the people who would rather not use a RRB, funnily enough most people would rather not use a RRB so that is going to be a lot of taxis!
Oh and that is asking for exceptional treatment!

The RRBs are normally well advertised, if you don't want to use them don't travel!

Responsibility for stopping yourself feeling ill on a bus, if I try and read a book, phone etc I feel sick, well guess what, when I am on a bus I don't do those things, I look out the window!

Travel sickness meds don't work for me, and you don't know anything about my medical situation or complicating factors. Maybe consider that for some, the problem is not as easily dealt with as it seems to be for you, before issuing your commands that they take "responsibility"?

In any case if it was so easily solved, why do you think I'd be considering much more time consuming routes by rail as an option?

And why the mention of taxis? Who's said anything about taxis?

Regarding RRBs being well advertised in advance, yes the ones for planned engineering are, and I've already said on this thread that I'd simply avoid travelling on those days if possible, or plan via an alternative route. This is about situations that arise after the ticket has been bought, and/or during the journey.

 

[najaB]

Which diversions are these, and what was the RRB route they were an alternative to?

When the ECML is closed between Edinburgh and Newcastle for engineering work (and occasionally when there is unplanned disruption) VTEC will run trains via the WCML as far as Carlisle and then across to Newcastle. It adds going on two hours onto the journey compared to taking the RRB between Edinburgh and Newcastle (particularly when they loco-haul electric sets) but lots of people still prefer to take the train.

 

[Greenback]

When the ECML is closed between Edinburgh and Newcastle for engineering work (and occasionally when there is unplanned disruption) VTEC will run trains via the WCML as far as Carlisle and then across to Newcastle. It adds going on two hours onto the journey compared to taking the RRB between Edinburgh and Newcastle (particularly when they loco-haul electric sets) but lots of people still prefer to take the train.

I've seen many examples of this sort of thing down the years. Effectively, where disruption due to engineering works is know ahead of time, plans can be made for it and these can include the passengers affected having a choice between a longer rail journey and the hassle of a replacement bus.

In this situations it;s reasonable to expect that passengers will know about what is happening, and make the right choice for their travel.

That's a bit of a different situation to an emergency, unforeseen type of situation, where bridges have been struck, and landslips or flooding have occurred, for instance.

Here, the passenger probably won't know about this before the travel. They may well be stuck on a train somewhere when it happens. What can or should they do then?

I think the answer depends on the circumstances. The only reasonable option to get the passenger to anywhere might be a replacement bus or taxi. That journey may be a short one to a nearby station, though, which may not be a big problem for the individual.

So I suppose I'm saying that you can't legislate for all eventualities. Things have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. If an incident occurs at Llangadog resulting in the sudden closure of the line, and someone with a Carmarthen to Knighton ticket wishes to avoid the RRB that's put on between, say Llandeilo or Llanelli and Llandrindod, I don't have any objection to it being agreed with train crew and control that they can travel the long way round to avoid the bus.

 

[najaB]

I've seen many examples of this sort of thing down the years. Effectively, where disruption due to engineering works is know ahead of time, plans can be made for it and these can include the passengers affected having a choice between a longer rail journey and the hassle of a replacement bus.

Oh, I get that. I was just making the point that not everyone is in a hurry and many people will take the longer journey time by train rather than the shorter one by rail replacement bus.

I think that people who truly need to travel by train due to motion sickness (or any other reason) should be allowed to do so at no additional cost to themselves, the difficulty is distinguishing them from people who want to travel by train instead of by bus.

 

[Greenback]

I know you get it, but I thought it was worth spelling out for everyone! Sometimes a passenger won't have a choice, sometimes they do.

It's the difficulty in distinguishing the genuine who need to travel by train from those who only want to that persuade me that nothing should be set down. It all has to be looked at each time, and I wouldn't be in favour of something like I used as an example if the closure was pre planned. It would only be for something that was unforeseen.

As I say, every case will be different.

 

[BRX]

When the ECML is closed between Edinburgh and Newcastle for engineering work (and occasionally when there is unplanned disruption) VTEC will run trains via the WCML as far as Carlisle and then across to Newcastle. It adds going on two hours onto the journey compared to taking the RRB between Edinburgh and Newcastle (particularly when they loco-haul electric sets) but lots of people still prefer to take the train.

Not quite the same situation as I've been talking about though, which is where a train is cancelled or stopped short and there is then the choice between RRB or rail using regular services (with no seat guaranteed and perhaps several changes) rather than a specially diverted services.

I can see why a lot of people would opt for the train in the circumstances you describe because if they are going further than Newcastle, getting the train right through saves them changing mid journey, and presumably they can reserve a seat like normal. Plus, does the 2 hours longer take account of the time lost changing from bus-train at Newcastle?

Would be interesting to see what proportion of passengers who were only going Edinburgh-Newcastle would still take the diverted train rather than direct RRB.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

Different people are affected differently. Some people are affected equally by both, some moreso by one than the other. I recently was talking to a lady I met on the train (I know shock horror!), she said her son couldn't travel more than 20 to 30 minutes by car or bus but was okay on the train - something to do with the nature of the motion as surprisingly he was fine on ferries. So her husband was driving down with their daughter and would meet them at the other end of the journey.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They're all forms of motion sickness, largely it's due to the the neurovestibular system and visual cues not matching up. The brain gets confused and (at least according to some) thinks that you've been poisoned - hence the attempt to get rid of the stomach contents.

I can't do buses either.

There is some good insight on the NHS website. Its partly the feeling of moving but not seeing the movement. Hence tips like looking out of the window at the horizon etc.

A friend of mine has motion sickness and he was a Bus Driver ! however his is more to do with speed than anything else.

I believe it is the same mechanism but different people have their "trigger" set at different levels.

I challenge you not to be sick on a steamer entering Douglas Bay on the Isle of Man in a force 8!

Ah, okay, I didn't know much of this - you learn something new every day!!

I have been across the Irish Sea going from Liverpool to Belfast to the north of the Isle of Man ... I wasn't ill, but it was very rough! It was pretty calm when I went into Douglas last May, though.

 

[ian959]

Travel sickness meds don't work for me, and you don't know anything about my medical situation or complicating factors. Maybe consider that for some, the problem is not as easily dealt with as it seems to be for you, before issuing your commands that they take "responsibility"?

Which thus diminishes your argument even further then. There is NO way any transport operator can possibly pander to the esoteric needs of every potential passenger due to their health issues. They try to do the best they can with the resources available to them. Inevitably that means that the special needs of every passenger cannot and will not be satisfied. So you suck it up and deal with it. The rail network is running at capacity in many areas, there is simply no way that it would be reasonable to expect the TOCs to allow unrestricted choice of route for completing a journey.

I suffer from motion sickness, meds don't often work for me either but I don't expect the entire rail network to bend over for me because of that. I take the meds anyway, stick some cotton wool in my ears, ask for a few paper bags from the nearest fast food outlet, close my eyes and hope for the best.

That is what is meant by taking responsibility...

 

[Greenback]

I agree that transport operators will try to do the best they can to accommodate anyone, especially when it comes to unforeseen disruption. There's always going to be a limit to what might be possible, never mind desirable, and this is yet another reason why any decision has to reflect the circumstances.

I really don't think it's ever going to be possible to have a blanket set of rules or instructions to cover every eventuality. It's a fact of life that sometimes things can happen to all of us that we would rather didn't happen, and that even with the best will in the world there's sometimes no alternative to a little bit of suffering.

 

[BRX]

I don't expect the entire rail network to bend over for me

Neither do I and I really don't see why you think I do, based on what I've written in this thread.

 

[najaB]

Not quite the same situation as I've been talking about though, which is where a train is cancelled or stopped short and there is then the choice between RRB or rail using regular services (with no seat guaranteed and perhaps several changes) rather than a specially diverted services.

As I mentioned, they will do do it if the wires come down as well. I have known people to join the train at Newcastle to take the long route to Edinburgh rather than get the bus.

 

[Greenback]

Neither do I and I really don't see why you think I do, based on what I've written in this thread.

My interpretation fo what you are saying is that discretion should be shown sometimes. I can't argue with that, though as I say it would depend on the exact circumstance.

As a further example, in case one is needed, when the Dawlish sea wall collapsed it would seem that the only option would have been a bus if you were on the Plymouth side, since there is no alternative rail route at all.

 

[BRX]

My interpretation fo what you are saying is that discretion should be shown sometimes. I can't argue with that, though as I say it would depend on the exact circumstance.

Yes - that's about right.

I have to say that in practice, I generally find arrangements for getting around closures to be fine. Reasonable rail alternatives are often accpeted automatically. I can't think of any time I've actually been forced onto a RRB when there was a reasonably practical alternative by rail.

It was mainly reading about the Lamington situation and the way the operators seem to be behaving there that prompted this thread. It appears for example that a TPE customer travelling to Edinburgh might be forced to take a bus when they could use the Virgin diversions via Dumfries which by all accounts seem to be running half empty.

If I found myself in that position, I would request that I took the diversion and I'd mention that the main reason is that motion sickness is an issue for me. I suspect that in reality, rail staff would take a less officious approach than shown in the tone of some of the comments on here, and it wouldn't be a problem.

If they refused though, I'd be a bit unhappy and I would complain. Maybe the reply from the relevant customer services office would tell me to man up, take responsibility and tell me off for demanding that they bend over backwards for me by letting me travel on a train which is half empty and running anyway.

As you say it depends on the circumstances. If it were the case that the Virgin shuttle trains were rammed full, and there was a big queue of people waiting for RRBs - then I'd accept that the "me too" issue could be a real one, and I'd adjust my expectations of what's reasonable accordingly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you say it depends on the circumstances. If it were the case that the Virgin shuttle trains were rammed full, and there was a big queue of people waiting for RRBs

To be fair, that was precisely the situation last Sunday. As I was on a walk-up I decided to avoid the lot of it and take the ScotRail stopper to Glasgow waiting on the adjacent platform, on which I enjoyed a table to myself in a quiet 4-car 156 throughout.

It was also notable that the TPE arrival was timed very close to the VT departure - maybe even impossibly so. And VT haven't I think had a lot of choice over those times.

 

[Greenback]

If I found myself in that position, I would request that I took the diversion and I'd mention that the main reason is that motion sickness is an issue for me. I suspect that in reality, rail staff would take a less officious approach than shown in the tone of some of the comments on here, and it wouldn't be a problem.

I think you would be right in the majority of cases. There will always be the odd person who makes a mistake, doesn't understand the issue properly or whatever, but in both travelling on the railway for many years and a short time working within the industry, on the whole the majority of front line staff, particularly train crew, are pretty flexible and understanding.

If they refused though, I'd be a bit unhappy and I would complain. Maybe the reply from the relevant customer services office would tell me to man up, take responsibility and tell me off for demanding that they bend over backwards for me by letting me travel on a train which is half empty and running anyway.

In my experience the back room staff would be more likely to side with you than their colleagues!

As you say it depends on the circumstances. If it were the case that the Virgin shuttle trains were rammed full, and there was a big queue of people waiting for RRBs - then I'd accept that the "me too" issue could be a real one, and I'd adjust my expectations of what's reasonable accordingly.

Exactly, and that's why a complaint may not always be justified, even if you disagree with the decision made there may be very good reasons not to allow a passenger to do exactly as they might want in some circumstances. In some cases it could come down to balancing the wants of an individual against the needs of a large number of travellers, though I;d expect such instances to be pretty rare in the grand scheme of things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair, that was precisely the situation last Sunday. As I was on a walk-up I decided to avoid the lot of it and take the ScotRail stopper to Glasgow waiting on the adjacent platform, on which I enjoyed a table to myself in a quiet 4-car 156 throughout.

It was also notable that the TPE arrival was timed very close to the VT departure - maybe even impossibly so. And VT haven't I think had a lot of choice over those times.

I don't think that there's any issue at all when it comes to walk up fares and permitted routes!

 

[Bantamzen]

I think when a passenger has a pre-existing medical condition which may preclude alternative forms of transport as described by the OP, the onus in the first instance lies with the passenger. Most delays that require replacement transport are either pre-planned engineering works, which can easily be planned around, or inclement weather conditions which themselves can be forecast at least a few hours / couple of days in the future. So where either exists, the passenger should either re-plan their journey via an alternative route from their starting point, or consider cancelling.

When blockages occur without any pre-warning, a passenger requiring transit via rail should make representation to a staff member of their TOC as soon as it becomes apparent that a problem may exist. Calmly explaining the situation as soon as possible gives them the most opportunity to explore possible alternative routes. However depending on the routes, time of day, passenger flows it may still be the case that an alternative TOC refuses to accept a ticket without at least an excess being paid, which the passenger should be aware of from the outset. Even if viable routes exist, it may be that earlier flows of passengers as a result of the blockade mean that the alternative TOC will be unwilling to accept further passenger numbers due to anticipated over-crowding. Any passenger aware that they may not be able to use alternative forms of transport need to be aware of these possibilities, and be prepared either to deal with the routes offered, or abandon the journey and return to their starting point (which will also need discussion with the TOC).

This might all sound heartless, but disruptions do happen and the individual needs of every passenger may not be able to be accommodated every time, and TOCs simply cannot be expected to have contingency plans for every type of medical condition that their passengers may suffer from.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is about situations that arise after the ticket has been bought

If you don't like the RRB don't travel.

All this is, when all's said and done, just another example of someone expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for them. I'm not heartless, but there comes a point when you just have to lump it, just as everybody else has to. Travelling on RRBs is not pleasant for most people, but they have to get on with it so why shouldn't you?

In reality, railway staff are a gentle and generous bunch and you'd normally be fine unless you were blatantly taking the mickey (e.g. travelling via Manchester on a Prudhoe-Hexham ticket "because you don't like buses".

And yes, the "what about me" is a big issue. Where do you draw the line? Bering sick on buses? Feeling sick on buses? Feeling uncomfortable on buses? Feeling that buses are beneath you? Being allowed to travel a different way because the bus doesn't have a first class compartment? Set up restrictions which say "you have to use the RRB except because of x" will suddenly see everyone develop x condition, won't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yes, the "what about me" is a big issue. Where do you draw the line? Bering sick on buses? Feeling sick on buses? Feeling uncomfortable on buses? Feeling that buses are beneath you? Being allowed to travel a different way because the bus doesn't have a first class compartment? Set up restrictions which say "you have to use the RRB except because of x" will suddenly see everyone develop x condition, won't it?

Just considering that you paid a premium for a train ticket, not a bus ticket? Megabus is usually cheaper, and Nat Ex often as well.

The presumption, as evidenced by the VTs via Kilmarnock, should be to keep people on trains - but even if they aren't *your* trains. Particularly for First Class, where buses can never really be a true replacement. (Indeed, has any TOC ever considered something like guaranteeing FC ticket holders two seats on a planned RRB?)

 

[WelshBluebird]

Surely it should depend on the situation?

One example where I've avoided a RRB was when the Severn Tunnel was shut, I was travelling from Cardiff to Bath with a lot of luggage, the TM was more than happy for me to do the journey fully by train via Gloucester rather than have to use the RRB between Newport and Bristol Parkway. Probably helped by the fact it was all FGW with no other ToC's involved and it isn't THAT much of a crazy route (although not allowed normally).

 

[Amy Worrall]

This might all sound heartless, but disruptions do happen and the individual needs of every passenger may not be able to be accommodated every time, and TOCs simply cannot be expected to have contingency plans for every type of medical condition that their passengers may suffer from.

There should be reasonable accommodation. There has to be if it's a disability, and I believe they should make them anyway if they can.

So for such a request, the TOC should consider how practical granting the request is, how much it would cost, whether it would help the customer overcome the barrier to accessing the services, etc.

In the case of "Can I use an alternative rail route rather than the replacement bus?", the cost is zero: the train is already running. The practicality is trivial: endorse the ticket. And if it helps a passenger who gets sick on buses not get sick, then obviously it removes a barrier.

I don't care about the concept that someone might fake motion sickness. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Doing so doesn't harm anyone else, and might well make someone's day a lot better. Why _not_ do that?

Amy

 

[Tetchytyke]

The presumption, as evidenced by the VTs via Kilmarnock, should be to keep people on trains - but even if they aren't *your* trains.

And- within reason- it is (although ironically some of the local services via Kilmarnock are being bustituted because of the VT shuttles taking up the track capacity).

The issue basically seems to be people wibbling that they have to use a bus Edinburgh-Carlisle on tickets routed via the WCML rather than being allowed to travel on a completely different line to the one they paid for. I'm not unsympathetic to that, it is frustrating, but there are limits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the case of "Can I use an alternative rail route rather than the replacement bus?", the cost is zero: the train is already running.

Except the cost isn't zero, when people who HAVE paid to travel on a specific route find they can't get a seat because of all the people who haven't paid to travel on that route.

There are consequences of all decisions. The consequence of allowing all the WCML passengers to use XC and VTEC was that those operators suffered extreme overcrowding, meaning some people who HAD paid to use their trains were denied boarding because there was no room. That's not exactly fair either, and the people left on the platform don't have a perfectly good RRB to use instead.

 

[Greenback]

It's precisely because it's difficult to know where to draw the line that I think that it would be impossible to legislate in any meaningful way. Even guidance can only be non prescriptive, and every incident has to be looked at on it's own merits.

Where we have cases like the weather related problem we've had recently, these are initially unforeseen but then they move to a situation that is known about and plans put in place, whether or not that includes inter availabilty on other routes on a temporary basis.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a passenger to make a decision on whether or not to travel based on what is known at that time. If the choice is between not travelling at all, taking a RRB or maybe paying for an additional ticket to take a different route, then that is a choice that the passenger who is already travelling probably won't have.

Because of this, I'd expect more flexibility to be shown immediately following unexpected disruption than later on once the situation has stabilised.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because of this, I'd expect more flexibility to be shown immediately following unexpected disruption than later on once the situation has stabilised.

Pretty much spot on. In the case of the WCML ticket availability was initially put in place, and that was completely the right thing to do. The issue seems to be now, two weeks down the line, people still expect that same ticket availability even though the situation has stabilised and an emergency timetable is in place and working well. Because the bus is a slight inconvenience, they expect the railway to bend over backwards to accommodate them, even when it would have a significant impact on the other TOC's own passengers.

I'm not unsympathetic- I hate RRBs as much as anyone- but sometimes it's just tough.

 

[Greenback]

The issue seems to be now, two weeks down the line, people still expect that same ticket availability even though the situation has stabilised and an emergency timetable is in place and working well.

That's an unrealistic expectation, in my not very humble opinion!

Because the bus is a slight inconvenience, they expect the railway to bend over backwards to accommodate them, even when it would have a significant impact on the other TOC's own passengers.

I'm not unsympathetic- I hate RRBs as much as anyone- but sometimes it's just tough.

I'd rather avoid RRB's myself, and I would think that the majority of passengers would too, at least in an ideal world where they don't have time sensitive journeys.

As far as anyone like the OP with specific problems, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for them to make a choice about whether to make a trip at all, or accept the reasonable alternative of a replacement road service with all that would entail considering they are aware of the situation ahead of time.

The passenger is the only person who knows how badly they will be affected by a road journey, and so they are the only person who can decide.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask for something else than what is on offer unless it is an unplanned emergency situation, in which case there is justification. The point for me is that they will be in the same position as those with pets, buggies, surfboards, etc who probably won't be conveyed on road transport at all.

 

[yorksrob]

Except the cost isn't zero, when people who HAVE paid to travel on a specific route find they can't get a seat because of all the people who haven't paid to travel on that route.

There are consequences of all decisions. The consequence of allowing all the WCML passengers to use XC and VTEC was that those operators suffered extreme overcrowding, meaning some people who HAD paid to use their trains were denied boarding because there was no room. That's not exactly fair either, and the people left on the platform don't have a perfectly good RRB to use instead.

My scepticism alarm is ringing.

How often were VTEC passengers left behind on the platform when the alternative ticketing arrangements were in place? I suspect not as often as made out. I remember travelling on a MML service to Leeds when the ECML went down due to snow. There were people sitting in the aisles, but everybody got on.

It sounds more like companies more interesting in protecting their fiefdoms than operating as a coordinated railway system.