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

Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#31

Post by switch007 »

seszett wrote: post #30
switch007 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g: - Departure: how to arrive, time, expense. - Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense. - Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense. I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be goin…

> in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow pa…

You pick 1am to refute my claim? Well, OK, YMMV...

I probably generalised too much with 'Europe'.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#33

Post by detaro »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #13
protomyth wrote: post #2

"After 9/11 air travel started to become far more time-consuming - for reasons of security which no one would ever criticise. People used to say no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours but I think four would now be more accurate." I'm with you on the 4 hours, but I would be happy to criticize the security theater after 9/11.

"no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so? People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam). And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage. I would say 5 hours should be non-issue. "As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that…

From what I see here in Germany, 5h train rides are not an issue for many people. It's just that on major routes, flying is very competitive.

I don't like the fact, but flying is cheaper in many cases, and inside the EU security is (in my experience) not that annoying. I mean, I have a 50% rebate card and even inside Germany, there are quite a scenarios where trains are only cheaper than flying if I take regional trains, at which point the time advantage of flying suddenly is quite large, and coaches become an agressivly priced alternative. And that despite the fact that I have a 50% rebate card for trains.

Start to cross borders and it gets worse.

EDIT: not to say that trains are not used, but especially among young people coaches, ride shares or flying are strong alternatives. Trains are great for short distances and if you want to go somewhere that is hard to reach otherwise.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#34

Post by david-given »

switch007 wrote: post #26
bnegreve wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I have to choose between a 2 hour flight and a 4 hours train ride, I choose the train. I hate airport security and I find it impossible to do anything in a plane. I agree that flying is generally cheaper though.

It's rarely a choice on that scale in/between England/Scotland, though. London-Scotland is ~4-5 hours on the train, or a 1h-1h15m flight. EDIT: London-Manchester is probably a good example of a good and popular train journey. While other domestic flights over the years have lost out to rail, London-Scotland by plane has remained popular. London-Paris is better, at 50 min flight vs 2 hour train. By the way, I'm not ar…

Scotland's big and slow. London to Edinburgh or Glasgow is ~4-5 hours, but London to Inverness is ~8-10, which is way too long.

That said, my favourite way to get to Inverness by train (I have family up there) is by sleeper train. It leaves London city centre at a civilised 2000, gets there at 0730, you can get your own cabin and the restaurant car serves a killer haggis. Plus people actually like being on it and like talking to you, and I've never met anyone on it who was dull.

...the sleeper train has to go specially slowly so as to give you a proper night's sleep.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#35

Post by david-given »

EliRivers wrote: post #8
Scoundreller wrote: post #3

Heathrow (and perhaps UK airport security as a whole) is also more restrictive in my experience than US/Canada/Schengen airports, so there's another point for the train. (Seized contact lens solution bottle, I'm looking at you!)

Not if you're just transiting. Sterile transit just plain doesn't exist at US airports (or at least, didn't when I last checked, which was a few years ago - maybe things are different now?), so changing planes takes bloody hours instead of minutes, and requires going through exit procedures and then coming back through security.

The last time I did a transit through Heathrow I was horrified to discover that they've stopped doing proper transit as well. Entry procedures and security, and it's not like Heathrow does this well at the best of times. At least I didn't have to pick up my luggage.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#36

Post by aselzer »

gpvos wrote: post #29
seszett wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also taken a night train from Vienna to Paris (and then a regular TGV to La Rochelle). Night trains are wonderful, they save you a night at the hotel, and they basically make the journey take no effective time from your holidays... but SNCF wants to get rid of them entirely, or so I heard.

That must have been the official Orient Express , which was reduced from its original Paris-Istanbul route to Paris-Bucharest in 1977, then Paris-Vienna in 2001, Strasbourg-Vienna in 2007, and cancelled in 2009. I thought it was DB who wanted to do away with them. But maybe SNCF too. Due to European railway regulation and thoughtless implementation of the same by the individual countries, international (night) trains…

They recently built a really large tunnel near Vienna, which is supposed to be a part of the planned high-speed connection from Bratislava/Budapest to Paris.

It will be "completed" in 2020, so we will probably see Trains going in this direction soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrale_for_Europe

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#37

Post by seszett »

switch007 wrote: post #31
seszett wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow pa…

You pick 1am to refute my claim? Well, OK, YMMV... I probably generalised too much with 'Europe'.

Well, I don't have much experience with pre-1am shuttles, except the one for the return flight which left maybe just 30 minutes late.

But when the 1:30 shuttle shows up at 3:00 and tells you that you should have expected it, I think it does tell something about the reliability and frequency of connections to the city.

The other systems I have experience with are Paris' RER, which is... okay, I guess, Copenhague's metro which makes the journey really easy, and Budapest's public transit which takes 1 hour and several changes. Copenhague is the only one I would consider reliable.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#38

Post by guard-of-terra »

detaro wrote: post #33
guard-of-terra wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so? People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam). And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage. I would say 5 hours should be non-issue. "As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that…

From what I see here in Germany, 5h train rides are not an issue for many people. It's just that on major routes, flying is very competitive. I don't like the fact, but flying is cheaper in many cases, and inside the EU security is (in my experience) not that annoying. I mean, I have a 50% rebate card and even inside Germany, there are quite a scenarios where trains are only cheaper than flying if I take regional tra…

This may definitely be an issue. Increased prices leading to decline in ridership leading to even more increased prices until it's dead.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#39

Post by justincormack »

gpvos wrote: post #29
seszett wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also taken a night train from Vienna to Paris (and then a regular TGV to La Rochelle). Night trains are wonderful, they save you a night at the hotel, and they basically make the journey take no effective time from your holidays... but SNCF wants to get rid of them entirely, or so I heard.

That must have been the official Orient Express , which was reduced from its original Paris-Istanbul route to Paris-Bucharest in 1977, then Paris-Vienna in 2001, Strasbourg-Vienna in 2007, and cancelled in 2009. I thought it was DB who wanted to do away with them. But maybe SNCF too. Due to European railway regulation and thoughtless implementation of the same by the individual countries, international (night) trains…

It was a lovely journey, although the scenery meant that it was worth doing in the daytime...

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#40

Post by jacquesm »

adevine wrote: post #25
guard-of-terra wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so? People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam). And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage. I would say 5 hours should be non-issue. "As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that…

Because past 3 hours the time/cost savings compared to air starts to look really unfavorable. Air travel has a high "fixed cost" (getting to the airport, going through security, picking up any checked luggage) but a low "variable cost" (it's much faster than a train), while the reverse is true for trains. Anything longer than 3-4 hours and the lower variable cost of air travel overcomes its higher fixed cost.

A critical factor here is how far away you live from an airport that services your destination. That can work out to be quite unfavourable, to the point where even a 6 hour car trip is preferable over a 3 hour plane ride.
Post reply on HN