8 ms·

Can Eurostar Compete with Airlines on Speed and Price?

84 points by edward 9y ago

jeanmichelx 9y ago
This fails to address that Stansted is far out of the city centre, while St Pancras could hardly be better positioned
- matt4077 9y ago
  What do you mean? THere's a complete paragraph on the topic: > And as the number of flights have proliferated, short-hop flights from economy carriers increasingly depart from smaller airports that are at a greater distance from the city, lengthening journey times further—not to mention obliging passengers to rely on sketchy onward transit. Anyone that’s made the 40 minute rail trip out to London Stansted Airport, or touched down at Southend Airport to find the last of the evening trains to London has long gone will know exactly what I mean here.
m_fayer 9y ago
> a succession of endless, snaking queues where passengers are laboriously urged forward like some indigestible, resented lump of food in a small intestine. I always appreciate it when journalists choose to add some verve to their prose.
- cm2187 9y ago
  The passport and security at Gare du Nord in Paris very much looks like that. I don't think eurostar has that much of an edge over airports in term of annoying passengers with queues and pointless rules.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Breezed right through Gare du Nord last Saturday. But we actually got to the train station about as early as we would have for a flight because we noted things were such a backed up mess when we arrived a few days prior.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  It was a lovely turn of phrase. One of the highlights of my day!
nrki 9y ago
In my experience, it definitely can't compete on price. London to Paris by Eurostar are routinely advertised as "from £29", but are usually £300+ return for a weekend. Whereas flights are often sub-£100. Eurostar has no competition except the airlines. Businesses will fork out for the tickets as you can't beat the time savings on the Paris route. It will be interesting when Deutsche Bahn start using the line.
- futurix 9y ago
  Last minute tickets are always expensive.
- baby 9y ago
  If you're willing to take in advance and not at the best time, I usually pay around 150GBP for London <-> Lyon. It's way more pleasant/practical than the plane so I'm willing to pay more, but I really wish it would be cheaper in general.
- justincormack 9y ago
  I rarely pay more than £100 return even booking late, usyally pay a little nore for premium economy.
  - bigger_cheese 9y ago
    I paid a similar price recently also booked at last minute. I've just returned to Australia from a holiday in Europe. On my travel agents advice I decided to leave UK by taking Eurostar from London to Paris. Incidentally I arrived in London via Amsterdam. The Eurostar trip itself was pretty pleasant booking it on the otherhand not so much. I should have purchased the tickets well in advance before leaving Australia instead I left it until the last minute - I blame bad advice from my agent who basically told me. "Oh you can just rock up to train station on the day purchase a ticket to Paris, no big deal". In Amsterdam I was advised that I may not be allowed into the UK unless I could show them I had a departure booked. So I had to buy the Eurostar ticket in a rush. Eurostar website did something weird with my credit card tripped up some sort of Fraud detection or something Triggered 2FA check with my Australian bank. Bank's text message went to my Australian SIM which of course was inaccessible from Amsterdam. I'd used this credit card all over Europe for 5 weeks up until this point with 0 issues I have no idea what it was about Eurostar site that triped their fraud detection. I had a backup prepaid Visa debit card which the Eurostar site also refused to accept. I ended up ringing friend of mine who lives in Rome in a panic and he was able to order tickets for me. Border Control did ask how I was planing on leaving the UK I told them Eurostar and they waved me through without asking to see the physical ticket.
Cynddl 9y ago
I don't understand the article. They explain than going in and out of the airport is burdersome, and that taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam is a much better experience, except for the change in Brussels A London to Amsterdam is currently 4 hours and 38 minutes (incl. a 47min change in Brussels). With a propre planning between Eurostar and Thalys, the route could be done in less than four hours. Taking a flight, on the contrary, will likely be much longer if you include the time to go to the airport, arrive 90 minutes in advance, and the time to leave airport in Amsterdam. Eurostar seem to have a clear advantage here, with prices often competitive, especially if you include Snap tickets.
- lmm 9y ago
  For a day or weekend trip to Amsterdam without hold luggage, 60 or even 45 minutes in advance is plenty (whereas, contra the article, 30 minutes before a Eurostar departure is not enough in standard class), and Schiphol airport is very organized and only a 20 minute train ride from central Amsterdam.
  - tluyben2 9y ago
    As I do very often, you can push that advance further. On London City flights, like I did sunday to Rotterdam, walking in under 30m works fine. If you have fasttrack and travel a lot (aka you know where to go in airports), for flights within the EU 90 minutes make no sense at all. Besides cancellations (my return flight to City was cancelled and moved to Heathrow which was a PITA) and the co2 pollution, I definitely prefer planes most of the time. The idea of a train sometimes appeals (even if it takes far more time): seeing the landscape for instance.
- JacobAldridge 9y ago
  Fwiw, we did the math ourselves when living in London: Eurostar to Paris was a no brainer time saver, as was (pretty much) Eurostar to Brussels. But we opted to fly to Amsterdam - time lost at the airport was gained by the short flight. This was influenced by us living in South London (Brixton). If we'd been closer to St Pancras / further from the airport, the math may have differed.
lmm 9y ago
Train-nerd response: "Can This European High-Speed Train..." with a picture of the old-model Eurostars that weren't suitable for running to Amsterdam. There's a gallery of what the new one looks like on https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-new-train-redefines-fast/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-new... .
- r00fus 9y ago
  Good catch - although as a non-train-nerd, I can hardly tell the difference. Do you know the key differences?
  - ComradeTaco 9y ago
    The largest single difference is that the newer trainsets can take different voltage/current combinations from overhead wires. This is important because different regions in Europe use different electrification systems, regions that can now be reached because of new trainsets.
  - niftich 9y ago
    The new trainsets ("Eurostar e320") are built by Siemens as the 'Velaro e320'. They are factory-equipped with ERTMS equipment (in-cab signalling, sensors, etc), and unlike the Alstom-built predecessors, support both the Germanic 15 kV 16.7 Hz AC electrification, and 1500 V DC used in the Netherlands.
  - lmm 9y ago
    As a passenger, they're taller (the original trainsets were built before HS1 so had to fit the traditional British loading gauge) and more spacious inside (partly due to slim seats), and I think a little sleeker on the outside. But the relevant part is that they have the right signalling and electrical equipment to run in the Netherlands.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  Meanwhile, in Amtrak they are channeling the vibe of the Cold War era Soviet machinery. Seriously, who builds these American trains? And when were they built?
bbx 9y ago
I've done the London–Brussels–Amsterdam a few times already (last time this month, next time in 2 months). It is definitely more expensive than flying, but I can't take short haul flights, and I do like the convenience of the train: 2 stops on the tube in London, 15 min tram ride in Amsterdam, and I'm home. The connection in Brussels is a bit annoying: you only have to change platforms but you have to wait at least 30 min. Removing that connection is I believe critical, as it will gradually save time over the next few years. The Paris and London Eurostar terminals are nice. The Brussels one is a bit dark and only for 2 platforms. The Lille is alright actually, and only for 1 platform. I'm not sure where they would put it in Amsterdam though (and that might be the cause of the delay). The current Thalys to Brussels always uses the same half platform, but it might be tricky to reserve it for a Eurostar that only travels twice a day. Also, the Amsterdam station has expanded its shopping centre, which leaves little space for a decently-sized Eurostar terminal. I'm intrigued at where they're gonna put it! Maybe build an extension on the water? For the most part, the train is for me a better experience: less busy than a plane, decent internet, better seats, which all means I can actually work on my laptop. You simply pay a premium for this convenience. I think both the plane and train markets serve different purposes: cheap but cumbersome or expensive but comfortable.
- ecspike 9y ago
  Lille's isn't so bad except for the fact that Lille-Europe pretty much only has Eurostar and Lille-Flandres is most everything else. It's walkable but a bit announcing.
  - seszett 9y ago
    Most TGVs that don't go through Paris depart from Lille-Europe rather than Lille-Flandre though. Lille-Flandre is mostly for local (non-TGV) traffic and Lille-Paris as far as I know. There's also a metro connection between the two (one station) that is accessible for the disabled (... or people with heavy luggage) and that is free if you have a valid train ticket although it's not advertised anywhere.
- phicoh 9y ago
  In Amsterdam Central Station they are now building stuff for passport control, security checks, etc. This is on the east side, around platform 13 or something. I don't think it is all the way at the back (15) but I never bothered to find out. Certainly not a separate terminal. Another interesting detail. I'm told that the Eurostar uses a train signalling system that is incompatible with the one used on the Dutch railways. Which basically means that they have to lock out the entire section between Amsterdam CS and the start of the HSL just to let one Eurostar go through.
Feniks 9y ago
Considering you have to get to the airport, go through customs/security, fly, go through customs/security again and get to your hotel I think Eurostar is definitely a good alternative.
alkonaut 9y ago
First of all it will help if companies simply make it strict policy that train should be preferred over flights when reasonable (I think this is the case already in many companies). Second, the more flying is taxed for emissions the more it will make the train price attractive.
williw 9y ago
Eurostar is definitely convenient. Took from London to Paris and return a couple of years ago. 2 hours from downtown to downtown. Much less time for ground transportation or check-in or anything like that than taking a flight. Personally prefer this than flying between London/Paris.
usrusr 9y ago
Trains any time, except for this one important exception: regional to hub airport traffic. When you miss the connecting flight because of a delay on the first leg, it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that the airline will take care for their mistake, but when you miss a flight because of train delay, tough luck. I don't know how large the fraction of feeder passengers is relative to point topoint on those flight, but those won't be switching to planes any time soon. At least not without single ticket/single checkin dedicated airport train connections.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  > but when you miss a flight because of train delay, tough luck. Solution for that is to put the airline checkin at the train station and make getting your from there to your destination the airlines problem. Which brings up the issue that transportation networks are often hopelessly Balkanized. At least in the US.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    They are everywhere. Unless travel is all on a single booking, if you miss a train/plane/hotel/etc. because of a travel delay, it's no different than if you just overslept. And it's not unreasonable. It's not really the hotel's fault that you couldn't use your room because of some weather problem a continent away. Travel insurance is probably one answer if you want to buffer against some issues--though I doubt it makes sense in most cases.
    - usrusr 9y ago
      Travel insurance is no substitute for integrated service because it adds one more thing to worry about when the itinerary fails: "How do I solve this problem" vs "How do I solve this problem in a way that will be covered".
  - FearNotDaniel 9y ago
    Not always in Europe. On some routes Lufthansa and Austrian allow booking of bus or rail transfers to the hub as a leg on the air ticket, which also means they guarantee the connection even in the case of delays. Examples: "Lufthansa Express Bus" which used Deutsche Postbus routes between Salzburg and Munich (now sadly defunct since Flixbus took over the route), and Austrian Airlines selling tickets on OeBB trains between Salzburg and Vienna (though personally I'd still prefer the 40min flight over a 2.5h train in that case). I always found it particularly amusing, while riding the SZG-MUC bus route, that a lonely little bus stop on the edge of Rosenheim, Bavaria has its own IATA airport code (ZPR).
rosege 9y ago
I used to do AMS <-> LON quite a bit a few years back. It was 5 hours with eurostar door to door or about 3 for flying for me. So I only did eurostar when I had the time and wanted to look out the window or had lots of luggage. It was generally more expensive but deals could be found if booking enough in advance.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I've done it a few times, it's long enough for me that I usually stay in Brussels and get an early train out in the morning.
softgrow 9y ago
I'm wondering if a four hour (international) train trip can really compete with air and that the inflexion point lies around the three and a half hour mark. There is a series of nice graphics from JR East (Japan Railway East) factsheet "Railway Business" http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03.pdf http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03.... (linked from http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html) that deals with this question directly of introducing a high speed rail service to compete with domestic airlines. Basically if the trip is under 3 hours expect airline market share to drop to 25% or lower. The lone four hour trip Tokyo to Hakodate, still only has 13% market share. Add on border formalities to the planned London-Amsterdam four hours and you'll move past the sweet spot and air will continue to dominate. To succeed the train will need to be even faster and probably do border formalities on the train to get nearer to 210 minutes.
FearNotDaniel 9y ago
I agree with the general point of the article: that getting in and out of most London airport terminals is becoming hellish enough that trains would be a preferable replacement up to 4-5hrs of journey time. It doesn't have to be that way, though. And I'm not sure that would work for Frankfurt, for example. With only hand luggage it is still possible to arrive at Heathrow's T2 for Lufthansa within an hour of take-off time, and when arriving you can be on the tube within 20 mins of landing. The lower-priced Eurowings flights also use the same terminal. If all airports were as well run as T2 the trains wouldn't get a look in.
reacweb 9y ago
In train, you spend less time in departure and arrival station, but more time traveling. In general, you also lose less time to reach stations. If you travel for business, you can work far more effectively in train.
chunkiestbacon 9y ago
I did Paris - London by Eurostar. The security and border control part is as annoying as flying. Actually it’s even worse since they check all your luggage. If you fly at least they only check handluggage. Ride was great however.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  They definitely check all your luggage when you fly. You just don’t see it because you dropped your bags at the counter.
beegeezuz 9y ago
haha a standard eurostar fare from london (st pancras) to ams is £155 return, wizzair luton to schipol is £28 return eurostart will never ever be as cheap as an airline and they don't have nearly enough routes to make it interesting for regular travellers
stevesimmons 9y ago
I travel London-Amsterdam once or twice a month. I don't agree with the article's assumption that Eurostar from St Pancras will beat flying, except perhaps for people whose starting point in London is close to St Pancras. As I see it, once the twice-daily London-Amsterdam Eurostar service starts in April: - To the 3h41 train travel time, allow at least an hour to get through the London Eurostar bag/passport checks. On a good day it can be 20 minutes but you have to plan for the worst case of an hour. Then once you are departure-side, the cafes have massive queues and there is a scramble for seats. - Compare that with London City Airport, where getting airside usually takes 5-15 minutes, queues for cafes are short to non-existent, and there's more seating where you can do useful work, etc. - Then Eurostar has just two departures a day. Great if those times suits you. Not great otherwise. LCY has at least three airlines flying to Amsterdam (BA, KLM, CityJet, maybe FlyBE), giving roughly hourly departure options. - In my particular case, I work at Canary Wharf. So if I fly back from Amsterdam on a Monday morning, I am at my desk 20 minutes after the plane touches down at LCY. Anyway, in April my partner and I plan to try Eurostar for the London-Amsterdam direction. We will continue to fly back Schiphol to LCY, to avoid the change of trains in Brussels on the reverse trip.

84 points by edward 9y ago

jeanmichelx 9y ago

This fails to address that Stansted is far out of the city centre, while St Pancras could hardly be better positioned

matt4077 9y ago
What do you mean? THere's a complete paragraph on the topic: > And as the number of flights have proliferated, short-hop flights from economy carriers increasingly depart from smaller airports that are at a greater distance from the city, lengthening journey times further—not to mention obliging passengers to rely on sketchy onward transit. Anyone that’s made the 40 minute rail trip out to London Stansted Airport, or touched down at Southend Airport to find the last of the evening trains to London has long gone will know exactly what I mean here.

m_fayer 9y ago

> a succession of endless, snaking queues where passengers are laboriously urged forward like some indigestible, resented lump of food in a small intestine. I always appreciate it when journalists choose to add some verve to their prose.

cm2187 9y ago
The passport and security at Gare du Nord in Paris very much looks like that. I don't think eurostar has that much of an edge over airports in term of annoying passengers with queues and pointless rules.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Breezed right through Gare du Nord last Saturday. But we actually got to the train station about as early as we would have for a flight because we noted things were such a backed up mess when we arrived a few days prior.
jogjayr 9y ago
It was a lovely turn of phrase. One of the highlights of my day!

nrki 9y ago

In my experience, it definitely can't compete on price. London to Paris by Eurostar are routinely advertised as "from £29", but are usually £300+ return for a weekend. Whereas flights are often sub-£100. Eurostar has no competition except the airlines. Businesses will fork out for the tickets as you can't beat the time savings on the Paris route. It will be interesting when Deutsche Bahn start using the line.

futurix 9y ago
Last minute tickets are always expensive.
baby 9y ago
If you're willing to take in advance and not at the best time, I usually pay around 150GBP for London <-> Lyon. It's way more pleasant/practical than the plane so I'm willing to pay more, but I really wish it would be cheaper in general.
justincormack 9y ago
I rarely pay more than £100 return even booking late, usyally pay a little nore for premium economy.
- bigger_cheese 9y ago
  I paid a similar price recently also booked at last minute. I've just returned to Australia from a holiday in Europe. On my travel agents advice I decided to leave UK by taking Eurostar from London to Paris. Incidentally I arrived in London via Amsterdam. The Eurostar trip itself was pretty pleasant booking it on the otherhand not so much. I should have purchased the tickets well in advance before leaving Australia instead I left it until the last minute - I blame bad advice from my agent who basically told me. "Oh you can just rock up to train station on the day purchase a ticket to Paris, no big deal". In Amsterdam I was advised that I may not be allowed into the UK unless I could show them I had a departure booked. So I had to buy the Eurostar ticket in a rush. Eurostar website did something weird with my credit card tripped up some sort of Fraud detection or something Triggered 2FA check with my Australian bank. Bank's text message went to my Australian SIM which of course was inaccessible from Amsterdam. I'd used this credit card all over Europe for 5 weeks up until this point with 0 issues I have no idea what it was about Eurostar site that triped their fraud detection. I had a backup prepaid Visa debit card which the Eurostar site also refused to accept. I ended up ringing friend of mine who lives in Rome in a panic and he was able to order tickets for me. Border Control did ask how I was planing on leaving the UK I told them Eurostar and they waved me through without asking to see the physical ticket.

Cynddl 9y ago

I don't understand the article. They explain than going in and out of the airport is burdersome, and that taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam is a much better experience, except for the change in Brussels A London to Amsterdam is currently 4 hours and 38 minutes (incl. a 47min change in Brussels). With a propre planning between Eurostar and Thalys, the route could be done in less than four hours. Taking a flight, on the contrary, will likely be much longer if you include the time to go to the airport, arrive 90 minutes in advance, and the time to leave airport in Amsterdam. Eurostar seem to have a clear advantage here, with prices often competitive, especially if you include Snap tickets.

lmm 9y ago
For a day or weekend trip to Amsterdam without hold luggage, 60 or even 45 minutes in advance is plenty (whereas, contra the article, 30 minutes before a Eurostar departure is not enough in standard class), and Schiphol airport is very organized and only a 20 minute train ride from central Amsterdam.
- tluyben2 9y ago
  As I do very often, you can push that advance further. On London City flights, like I did sunday to Rotterdam, walking in under 30m works fine. If you have fasttrack and travel a lot (aka you know where to go in airports), for flights within the EU 90 minutes make no sense at all. Besides cancellations (my return flight to City was cancelled and moved to Heathrow which was a PITA) and the co2 pollution, I definitely prefer planes most of the time. The idea of a train sometimes appeals (even if it takes far more time): seeing the landscape for instance.
JacobAldridge 9y ago
Fwiw, we did the math ourselves when living in London: Eurostar to Paris was a no brainer time saver, as was (pretty much) Eurostar to Brussels. But we opted to fly to Amsterdam - time lost at the airport was gained by the short flight. This was influenced by us living in South London (Brixton). If we'd been closer to St Pancras / further from the airport, the math may have differed.

lmm 9y ago

Train-nerd response: "Can This European High-Speed Train..." with a picture of the old-model Eurostars that weren't suitable for running to Amsterdam. There's a gallery of what the new one looks like on https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-new-train-redefines-fast/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-new... .

r00fus 9y ago
Good catch - although as a non-train-nerd, I can hardly tell the difference. Do you know the key differences?
- ComradeTaco 9y ago
  The largest single difference is that the newer trainsets can take different voltage/current combinations from overhead wires. This is important because different regions in Europe use different electrification systems, regions that can now be reached because of new trainsets.
- niftich 9y ago
  The new trainsets ("Eurostar e320") are built by Siemens as the 'Velaro e320'. They are factory-equipped with ERTMS equipment (in-cab signalling, sensors, etc), and unlike the Alstom-built predecessors, support both the Germanic 15 kV 16.7 Hz AC electrification, and 1500 V DC used in the Netherlands.
- lmm 9y ago
  As a passenger, they're taller (the original trainsets were built before HS1 so had to fit the traditional British loading gauge) and more spacious inside (partly due to slim seats), and I think a little sleeker on the outside. But the relevant part is that they have the right signalling and electrical equipment to run in the Netherlands.
vadimberman 9y ago
Meanwhile, in Amtrak they are channeling the vibe of the Cold War era Soviet machinery. Seriously, who builds these American trains? And when were they built?

bbx 9y ago

I've done the London–Brussels–Amsterdam a few times already (last time this month, next time in 2 months). It is definitely more expensive than flying, but I can't take short haul flights, and I do like the convenience of the train: 2 stops on the tube in London, 15 min tram ride in Amsterdam, and I'm home. The connection in Brussels is a bit annoying: you only have to change platforms but you have to wait at least 30 min. Removing that connection is I believe critical, as it will gradually save time over the next few years. The Paris and London Eurostar terminals are nice. The Brussels one is a bit dark and only for 2 platforms. The Lille is alright actually, and only for 1 platform. I'm not sure where they would put it in Amsterdam though (and that might be the cause of the delay). The current Thalys to Brussels always uses the same half platform, but it might be tricky to reserve it for a Eurostar that only travels twice a day. Also, the Amsterdam station has expanded its shopping centre, which leaves little space for a decently-sized Eurostar terminal. I'm intrigued at where they're gonna put it! Maybe build an extension on the water? For the most part, the train is for me a better experience: less busy than a plane, decent internet, better seats, which all means I can actually work on my laptop. You simply pay a premium for this convenience. I think both the plane and train markets serve different purposes: cheap but cumbersome or expensive but comfortable.

ecspike 9y ago
Lille's isn't so bad except for the fact that Lille-Europe pretty much only has Eurostar and Lille-Flandres is most everything else. It's walkable but a bit announcing.
- seszett 9y ago
  Most TGVs that don't go through Paris depart from Lille-Europe rather than Lille-Flandre though. Lille-Flandre is mostly for local (non-TGV) traffic and Lille-Paris as far as I know. There's also a metro connection between the two (one station) that is accessible for the disabled (... or people with heavy luggage) and that is free if you have a valid train ticket although it's not advertised anywhere.
phicoh 9y ago
In Amsterdam Central Station they are now building stuff for passport control, security checks, etc. This is on the east side, around platform 13 or something. I don't think it is all the way at the back (15) but I never bothered to find out. Certainly not a separate terminal. Another interesting detail. I'm told that the Eurostar uses a train signalling system that is incompatible with the one used on the Dutch railways. Which basically means that they have to lock out the entire section between Amsterdam CS and the start of the HSL just to let one Eurostar go through.

Feniks 9y ago

Considering you have to get to the airport, go through customs/security, fly, go through customs/security again and get to your hotel I think Eurostar is definitely a good alternative.

alkonaut 9y ago

First of all it will help if companies simply make it strict policy that train should be preferred over flights when reasonable (I think this is the case already in many companies). Second, the more flying is taxed for emissions the more it will make the train price attractive.

williw 9y ago

Eurostar is definitely convenient. Took from London to Paris and return a couple of years ago. 2 hours from downtown to downtown. Much less time for ground transportation or check-in or anything like that than taking a flight. Personally prefer this than flying between London/Paris.

usrusr 9y ago

Trains any time, except for this one important exception: regional to hub airport traffic. When you miss the connecting flight because of a delay on the first leg, it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that the airline will take care for their mistake, but when you miss a flight because of train delay, tough luck. I don't know how large the fraction of feeder passengers is relative to point topoint on those flight, but those won't be switching to planes any time soon. At least not without single ticket/single checkin dedicated airport train connections.

Gibbon1 9y ago
> but when you miss a flight because of train delay, tough luck. Solution for that is to put the airline checkin at the train station and make getting your from there to your destination the airlines problem. Which brings up the issue that transportation networks are often hopelessly Balkanized. At least in the US.
- ghaff 9y ago
  They are everywhere. Unless travel is all on a single booking, if you miss a train/plane/hotel/etc. because of a travel delay, it's no different than if you just overslept. And it's not unreasonable. It's not really the hotel's fault that you couldn't use your room because of some weather problem a continent away. Travel insurance is probably one answer if you want to buffer against some issues--though I doubt it makes sense in most cases.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Travel insurance is no substitute for integrated service because it adds one more thing to worry about when the itinerary fails: "How do I solve this problem" vs "How do I solve this problem in a way that will be covered".
- FearNotDaniel 9y ago
  Not always in Europe. On some routes Lufthansa and Austrian allow booking of bus or rail transfers to the hub as a leg on the air ticket, which also means they guarantee the connection even in the case of delays. Examples: "Lufthansa Express Bus" which used Deutsche Postbus routes between Salzburg and Munich (now sadly defunct since Flixbus took over the route), and Austrian Airlines selling tickets on OeBB trains between Salzburg and Vienna (though personally I'd still prefer the 40min flight over a 2.5h train in that case). I always found it particularly amusing, while riding the SZG-MUC bus route, that a lonely little bus stop on the edge of Rosenheim, Bavaria has its own IATA airport code (ZPR).

rosege 9y ago

I used to do AMS <-> LON quite a bit a few years back. It was 5 hours with eurostar door to door or about 3 for flying for me. So I only did eurostar when I had the time and wanted to look out the window or had lots of luggage. It was generally more expensive but deals could be found if booking enough in advance.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I've done it a few times, it's long enough for me that I usually stay in Brussels and get an early train out in the morning.

softgrow 9y ago

I'm wondering if a four hour (international) train trip can really compete with air and that the inflexion point lies around the three and a half hour mark. There is a series of nice graphics from JR East (Japan Railway East) factsheet "Railway Business" http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03.pdf http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03.... (linked from http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html) that deals with this question directly of introducing a high speed rail service to compete with domestic airlines. Basically if the trip is under 3 hours expect airline market share to drop to 25% or lower. The lone four hour trip Tokyo to Hakodate, still only has 13% market share. Add on border formalities to the planned London-Amsterdam four hours and you'll move past the sweet spot and air will continue to dominate. To succeed the train will need to be even faster and probably do border formalities on the train to get nearer to 210 minutes.

FearNotDaniel 9y ago

I agree with the general point of the article: that getting in and out of most London airport terminals is becoming hellish enough that trains would be a preferable replacement up to 4-5hrs of journey time. It doesn't have to be that way, though. And I'm not sure that would work for Frankfurt, for example. With only hand luggage it is still possible to arrive at Heathrow's T2 for Lufthansa within an hour of take-off time, and when arriving you can be on the tube within 20 mins of landing. The lower-priced Eurowings flights also use the same terminal. If all airports were as well run as T2 the trains wouldn't get a look in.

reacweb 9y ago

In train, you spend less time in departure and arrival station, but more time traveling. In general, you also lose less time to reach stations. If you travel for business, you can work far more effectively in train.

chunkiestbacon 9y ago

I did Paris - London by Eurostar. The security and border control part is as annoying as flying. Actually it’s even worse since they check all your luggage. If you fly at least they only check handluggage. Ride was great however.

chatmasta 9y ago
They definitely check all your luggage when you fly. You just don’t see it because you dropped your bags at the counter.

beegeezuz 9y ago

haha a standard eurostar fare from london (st pancras) to ams is £155 return, wizzair luton to schipol is £28 return eurostart will never ever be as cheap as an airline and they don't have nearly enough routes to make it interesting for regular travellers

stevesimmons 9y ago

I travel London-Amsterdam once or twice a month. I don't agree with the article's assumption that Eurostar from St Pancras will beat flying, except perhaps for people whose starting point in London is close to St Pancras. As I see it, once the twice-daily London-Amsterdam Eurostar service starts in April: - To the 3h41 train travel time, allow at least an hour to get through the London Eurostar bag/passport checks. On a good day it can be 20 minutes but you have to plan for the worst case of an hour. Then once you are departure-side, the cafes have massive queues and there is a scramble for seats. - Compare that with London City Airport, where getting airside usually takes 5-15 minutes, queues for cafes are short to non-existent, and there's more seating where you can do useful work, etc. - Then Eurostar has just two departures a day. Great if those times suits you. Not great otherwise. LCY has at least three airlines flying to Amsterdam (BA, KLM, CityJet, maybe FlyBE), giving roughly hourly departure options. - In my particular case, I work at Canary Wharf. So if I fly back from Amsterdam on a Monday morning, I am at my desk 20 minutes after the plane touches down at LCY. Anyway, in April my partner and I plan to try Eurostar for the London-Amsterdam direction. We will continue to fly back Schiphol to LCY, to avoid the change of trains in Brussels on the reverse trip.