Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New network of European sleeper trains planned

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#111

Post by tincholio »

calpaterson wrote: post #19
WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #5

Some information to put into perspective the articles which are now regularly published about the revival of sleeper trains. First, if you look at Europe as a whole, you will see that sleeper trains were never really dead. There are plenty of them in Germany and Eastern Europe. Often they go from large cities to holiday destinations and therefore are mainly used by people travelling for leisure. The novelty of these…

> First, if you look at Europe as a whole, you will see that sleeper trains were never really dead. In the UK, experiences vary. The new Caledonian Sleeper (London-Highlands) is apparently a pretty rubbish experience. However, I took the Night Riviera (London - Cornwall) a few years ago and found it a pretty good experience even though I very nearly missed my stop in Truro. The problem for a business traveller is tha…

Here in Finland, you can get a sleeping compartment where the toilet transforms into a shower. They're quite practical...

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#112

Post by CRConrad »

jodrellblank wrote: post #109
bluGill wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say anything about putting every single house on tarmac? I said several times that gravel is good enough for most roads. As you get into dense cities you will discover that tarmac is a better choice than gravel just because the large number of tasks that don't work well via mass transit makes the disadvantages of gravel show. > "it's impossible because that would require forward planning" does show societ…

My original point was under "trains need more infrastructure than planes" to say "and less infrastructure than cars". You then said that trains need cars - which they don't. If you had mud paths, and wilderness between cities, and intercity train would be an improvement on that, so would a local metro. Cars wouldn't be an improvement - everyone getting a Honda Civic wouldn't be able to move on the too-small, too-mudd…

> You then said that trains need cars - which they don't. If you had mud paths, and wilderness between cities, and intercity train would be an improvement on that

All you needed to say was: the "wild west".

Trains provably added a lot of value for decades without cars, because cars didn't even exist yet.

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#113

Post by CRConrad »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #97
bellyfullofbac wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I have 2% of your paycheck then, if it's negligible?

This is about prioritising issues. If your boat is sinking you do not discuss what to do about the slow drip at the back, you try to solve the massive hole at the front first. If air travel only accounts for 2% of emissions then whatever we do will have a very small impact overall. So do we really need to bother at the moment or at all? It's not targeted because it makes a difference but because it's politically easi…

>>>[mytailorisrich:] 2% of global emissions is close to negligible.

>>[bellyfullofbac:] Can I have 2% of your paycheck then, if it's negligible?

>[mytailorisrich:] This is about prioritising issues

Maybe de-prioritise your wardrobe then?

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#114

Post by CRConrad »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #51
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains compete with cars, not with airplanes.

Bruxelles to Paris : 90 minutes, Zurich to Paris : 244 minutes, London to Paris 149 minutes I could go on. Show me where a car is competitive for any of those routes. In addition, not even plane is competitive if you consider the airport to city transfer and back. It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

> It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#115

Post by CaptainZapp »

CRConrad wrote: post #114
CaptainZapp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bruxelles to Paris : 90 minutes, Zurich to Paris : 244 minutes, London to Paris 149 minutes I could go on. Show me where a car is competitive for any of those routes. In addition, not even plane is competitive if you consider the airport to city transfer and back. It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

> It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG. Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.

Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos.

Compared with terminal 2F it's actually pleasant. 2F is a packed confused mess with no seating whatsoever. Well, there are some seats by my impression was 1 seat per 10 passengers.

My observation is that I'm livid in 100% of all cases flying from there once I'm boarding the plane. Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful.

Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience.

One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#116

Post by CRConrad »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #115
CRConrad wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG. Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.

Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos. Compared with terminal 2F it's actually pleasant. 2F is a packed confused mess with no seating whatsoever. Well, there are some seats by my impression was 1 seat per 10 passengers. My observation is that I'm livid in 100% of all cases flying from th…

> Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos.

That must have been where we were. If that's "pretty bad", then no more so than any other European airport IME/AFAICR.

> Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful.

We took the RER both ways. Worked pretty well, I thought.

> Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage).

We did, and I can't recall any problem with that.

> Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience.

IIRC we used the ticket-vending machines on the platform. Sure, the UI is usually somewhat cryptic on those anywhere -- did we overpay, again? Can't recall, but quite possible -- but no worse at CDG than anywhere else I can recall.

> One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.

Me neither; Helsinki - Paris and back.

Either we had exceptional luck... Or maybe you've got a slightly irrational bee in your bonnet about CDG.

Re: New network of European sleeper trains planned

#117

Post by dkarp »

liversage wrote: post #88
dkarp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once took the train while backpacking from Hamburg to Copenhagen. I was incredibly surprised when part way through the journey I awoke on a ferry. It still blows my mind that they have a train that can roll on and off a ferry. Unfortunately, it looks like it no longer takes the ferry and one day will take that tunnel instead https://www.seat61.com/trains-and-routes/hamburg-to-copenhag...

I live in Copenhagen. Nowadays we have bridges or tunnels everywhere except when traveling to Germany. However, when I was younger ALL train travel outside Zealand (with Lolland and Falster) would involve going on a ferry. The carriages were on the lower deck sometimes mixed with cars and sometimes with cars on a separate deck. After departure you could leave the train for a nice break. It wasn't particularly fast bu…

> These ferries were bottlenecks and would put a lot of people in the same place at the same time.

It's easy to sound like a luddite when talking about these things, but something has obviously been unintentionally lost when the ferry was replaced with a tunnel.

I've noticed that travelling with my noise cancelling headphones on precludes serendipity. What I mean is, 99% of the time I don't speak to someone when sitting on the train but every once in a while I get into a conversation and something comes of it. If I always have headphones on, I'm guaranteeing that will never happen.

Post reply on HN