Influence of different conditions for tilt compensation on symptoms of motion sickness in tilting trains

Abstract

Increased speeds of trains can be achieved by using tilting trains that decrease the lateral acceleration experienced by passengers on curves, thereby allowing trains to run typically 25-30% faster on existing curved track and maintaining good ride comfort. Unfortunately, motion sickness in tilting trains is a major problem for some passengers. To investigate the incidence of motion sickness and the extent to which different tilt compensation strategies influence its occurrence, tests were conducted with a tilting train on a track with a large number of curves. Eighty healthy volunteers were studied, selected partly for their susceptibility. Three different cars were evaluated during 3 test days, with each test ride lasting about 3 h. On four occasions per test ride, the subjects answered a questionnaire concerning activities during the ride, ride comfort, ability to work and read, vegetative symptoms, fatigue, sleepiness, nausea and well-being. Subjects estimation of average ride comfort and ability to work and read was good in all conditions. However, 10% of the test subjects reported various symptoms of motion sickness (SMS). A 55% degree of tilt compensation of the lateral acceleration instead of the normal 70% reduced the symptoms of motion sickness incidence (SMSI) by 25-40%. SMSI correlated poorly with motion doses, which integrates vertical or lateral acceleration but correlated well with roll acceleration motion dose (r2 = 0.43, p < 0.001). For women, riding backward (p < 0.001) minimized SMSI, but men were insensitive to direction. Future railway design will have to optimize tilt systems by both minimizing motion sickness and avoiding excessive lateral acceleration or jerk.

Suitability of Tilting Technology to the Tyne and Wear Metro System

“…Several methods have been employed to find out the underlying cause of motion sickness, and research has shown that passengers complain the most when the train uses a passively tilted system. Actively tilting train does record motion sickness cases however the numbers coincide closely with non-tilting trains [4].…”

“…Motion sickness is not necessarily uncommon in the transportation industries. Non-tilting trains, although not as much as tilting trains, have reported passengers experiencing motion sickness [4]. There is currently a general understanding that having tilting trains which compensate for 100 % of lateral acceleration poses high risks of inducing motion sickness [4].…”

“…Non-tilting trains, although not as much as tilting trains, have reported passengers experiencing motion sickness [4]. There is currently a general understanding that having tilting trains which compensate for 100 % of lateral acceleration poses high risks of inducing motion sickness [4]. The Swedish preferred the tilt compensation method to compensate for 65-70 % of lateral acceleration on curves [4] as is currently used in the Swedish X2000 tilting train.…”

“…There is currently a general understanding that having tilting trains which compensate for 100 % of lateral acceleration poses high risks of inducing motion sickness [4]. The Swedish preferred the tilt compensation method to compensate for 65-70 % of lateral acceleration on curves [4] as is currently used in the Swedish X2000 tilting train. Several methods have been employed to find out the underlying cause of motion sickness, and research has shown that passengers complain the most when the train uses a passively tilted system.…”

Rail human factors: Past, present and future

“…Branton (1993b), Fo¨rstberg (1997Fo¨rstberg ( , 2000, Fo¨rstberg et al (1998), Suzuki et al (1999), Suzuki and Shiroto (2002), van der Weide (1999). Support for passengers also comes through the interfaces to the information and ticketing systems with which they are provided (Davis and Mills, 2005;Garnerin, 2001;Lamel et al, 2002;Thimbleby et al, 2002), and with designing for their movement around stations and in boarding and alighting trains (Morlok et al, 2004).…”