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

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#61

Post by willyt »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #57
a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm skeptical about the importance of high speed rail. Normal speed rail is fine in today's world because the main thing people need is solid broadband. Just make the cars really comfortable provide rock solid broadband. Business class passengers wouldn't even mind six hour trips if pretty much the whole thing was billable and comfortable, and the schedule was totally reliable with fast boarding.

It depends on your definition of "normal speed". If it's 80 km/hour, then it is limited to regional rail or sleeper overnight trains. If it's 150 km/hour, it's already kind of fast if you ask me.

Normal speed is up to 200-225kph in the UK. Commuter rail up to 160kph. Metro 60-100kph

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#62

Post by vacri »

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…

People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam).

I trained around the eastern US a bit, and while north of DC the trains are heavily-used and a 'normal' experience, south of DC the trains were very laid back and comfortable. They're subsidised, so the tickets are dirt-cheap, few people use them, they're comfortable and spacious, have power for laptops, and even have an entire car dedicated to sitting in a lounge chair facing outward to watch the scenery roll by ("oh, more kudzu..."). The only downside is that the stations were only at major locations, so not many stopping points, which was fine for what I was doing.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#63

Post by archagon »

Chris_Newton wrote: post #50
justincormack wrote: post #4

Well not joining Schengen is stupid, and easily fixed.

I recently travelled from Cambridge, UK to Amsterdam. Given that I strongly dislike modern air travel for all the usual reasons, I went by train. It was striking just how much more pleasant that journey was than a flight to another European capital that I took not so long ago. I had to be at the international terminal at St Pancras in London a half-hour before the train left, though I think some of the more expensive…

Fun fact: you can also take the bus (IDBUS) under the channel. There is literally no security: chuck your luggage in the back, show 'em your ticket PDF, and off you go. Not as cushy or fast as a train, but hey — Brussels to London for €30 ain't bad.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#64

Post by ticksoft »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
adevine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains have the advantage of being in city centres too where light rail and buses are concentrated.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#65

Post by [deleted] »

david-given wrote: post #34
switch007 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

[deleted]

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#67

Post by moszja »

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…

+1 for trains, one of the best ski trips I went on involved London St Pancras to the south of france via train, roamed around, took pretty unlimited baggage, a real pleasure (even at around 8 hours) - would not fly again (2hr flight + travel, security etc).

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#68

Post by Rexxar »

Brakenshire wrote: post #46
switch007 wrote: post #7

"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again. ... Even some of those who knew of the Lille stop were surprised to find they had to carry their luggage throughout" Who would want to do that? Not only that, the Marseille train leaves London at 07:19! Great for people in London, not so great if you live outside. Firstly, it might not be possible to get…

It's only one train a day, so it doesn't need to fulfil that much of a market (i.e. it's enough to cover just the people who are in central London and able to get there by 7.00). Also, it stops at Lyons and Avignon on the way, Marseille is an addition to the service, not the main purpose: > In fact, a few days ago, getting the train to the UK, only a few passengers boarded at Marseille. But the Eurostar filled up nic…

I think direct here means "without changing train" not "without any stops".

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#69

Post by avn2109 »

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.

For me, the general PITA and loud departure/security announcements of airports is a huuuge fixed cost. Train stations just feel much more civilized.

Re: Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

#70

Post by salvadors »

Rexxar wrote: post #68
Brakenshire wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only one train a day, so it doesn't need to fulfil that much of a market (i.e. it's enough to cover just the people who are in central London and able to get there by 7.00). Also, it stops at Lyons and Avignon on the way, Marseille is an addition to the service, not the main purpose: > In fact, a few days ago, getting the train to the UK, only a few passengers boarded at Marseille. But the Eurostar filled up nic…

I think direct here means "without changing train" not "without any stops".

Having to get off the train for 75 minutes, with all your luggage etc., is effectively "changing train" to most people, even if you end up getting back on the same train.
Post reply on HN