Rough seas for crossing?
 

I'm considering going from London to Amsterdam via the overnight ferry/train, early October.

As someone who is susceptable to motion sickness, I'm left wondering if this is a good idea. It's certainly less costly than the high speed Eurostar, but I don't want to be hanging over the toilet all night! Just thinking about the "whirlies" give me the whirlies....

Assuming the worst, and the seas are angry, should I give pay the difference and get on the train, or can I expect a nice gentle rocking which might just put me to sleep.

BTW, I always travel with Gravol and sea wrist bands - very occasionally flying makes me feel a bit nausous if it's too hot and crowded.

If we opt for the boat, any recommendations on any particular cabin to try to request, if that's possible. I'd like a window.

Many thanks.

If the channel is rough you will not feel gentle rocking- but will probably be deathly ill.

Only you know howesily you get motion sick - but there is no way I would get on any boat (except a row boat on a lake) with dramimine.

If flying can make you nauseous - there is no way I'd take a ferry. Never. Most crossings are fine, but you won't know until you disembark in England whether yours was or not -- and that is much too late to do anything about it.

Fly from A'dam to London. Even if you are unlucky and it is a rough flight, it will be short - not an overnight ordeal.

You never know your luck - until it's too late to get off. And can't imagine anything worse than being stuck in a cabin or stuffy saloon with other passengers dying like flies. In the 70s I endured a Force 7, 8 or whatever gale in the Channel in November - an old bloke I joined hanging on just outside the vomit drenched main seating area said it was the worst he'd encountered and he'd been travelling from France or Spain from before the war. But the fresh air (there's a tip) did wonders for the few of us who ventured out on deck (may not be permitted in rough weather these days) and at that age I ended up rather enjoying a bonus ride (the trip took twice as long as it should have before we could safely dock) and still remember more than one of my fellow passengers kissing the ground after we staggered off the ferry and made our way to the waiting train. But don't let that put you off - just a few years earlier, I had doped up for a night crossing of Bass Strait (between mainland Australia and Tasmania) in winter, the week after the ferry's captain had his arm broken on a crossing, only to find the sea was flat as a mill pond and I was not the only one who appeared to be under the influence (watch out for those raised doorways). So, if you have form calling for Herb and are not up for the experience, best take the train (and try not to think of all that water overhead).

Fly. Probably cheaper anyway.

I once crossed from Boulogne to Dover with 3 friend in what I thought was a slight chop... we had to go outside as the people being sick in the lounge was unbelievable. And we'd always thought the English were a seafaring race! LOL

Well, some of them tend to drink as well.

If it's the Harwich Hook of Holland route, I'd avoid it.
When it's rough, it's very rough.

The last time I took the channel ferry it was the barf boat. The bow was rising and falling with incredible altitude and intensity. The ride is smoother in the aft bar, with a glass of Scotch.

The ships on the Harwich-Hoek route were built last year and are amongst the biggest ferries in the world. They measure 64,000 tons and are 787 ft long. It's very unlikely that you'll feel any motion.

Sometimes it doesn't matter how big the boat is, if you're prone to travel sickness you can get sick on it, i've met people who've gotten sea sick on aircraft carriers and you could hardly call them small ;)

"<i>They measure 64,000 tons and are 787 ft long. It's very unlikely that you'll feel any motion.</i>"

I have friends who took their honeymoon on a cruise --a mega huge liner larger than any ferry. Bride -- a long time cruiser who loves it. Groom - never been on a cruise but tried ocean fishing once and was REALLY sick. Bride: "Don't worry honey. The ship is huge and you won't feel a thing". Groom: "OK -- sounds like fun"

NOT -- he actually was seasick before they even got out of port and he spent almost the whole cruise either throwing up, feeling like he was going to throw up, or cleaning up the bathroom.

Needless to say -- they are never taking another cruise together

All ships are tiny compared to the bodies of water in which they float, and so there are none in which you will never feel any motion.

Aircraft do encounter turbulence, but it tends to be brief and includes movement of a type that is less likely to induce motion sickness. Statistically, only about one in a thousand airline passengers gets motion sickness.

Those modern ferries actually make you sick sooner than any other ship. They tend to sway instead of rock, making you dizzy pretty soon.

The channel is pretty shallow, any storm can get nasty very quickly on a boat. Personally, if you don't have a car that you want to transfer, I'ld go by air or train. It's only a small hop from London to Amsterdam and pretty cheap too.

Is this a choice between fast (but perhaps more expensive) train vs. slow (an perhaps miserable) boat trip?

Is what you are waffling "what if sea happens to be calm, I would have paid more for train for nothing?" Well, no one here can tell you, only the odd of such thing in October and the consequences.

If less than remote event, such as rough sea at this time of the year, is not acceptable to you, would you still flirt with the idea?

If you wait until just before your departure and find out the rough sea is expected, the Eurostar fare at that point will be more expensive than what you may be paying now. Is this a consequence you rather want to deal with?

You cannot control the odd of many circumstances, weather is one of them. You can only improve the consequences by taking steps beforehand.

If you do have a car, you can bring it on the train through the tunnel.