8 ms·

Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB) took over all remaining sleepers run by Deutsche Bahn (DB) some years ago. One downside of this was the dropping of the Amste

Österreichische Bundesbahnen (ÖBB) took over all remaining sleepers run by Deutsche Bahn (DB) some years ago. One downside of this was the dropping of the Amsterdam–Munich sleeper — ÖBB's nexus lies in Vienna. The Netherlands currently has no sleeper trains, which is rather unfortunate, because the sleeper train appears to gaining in popularity after a period of decline. Increasingly, people want to avoid flying if reasonably possible. A sleeper train is ideal, because you spend most of the trip asleep, and end up in Munich, Paris, Vienna, etc. early in the morning, in the middle of the city. Sure, it's not as comfortable as a hotel, but it beats the torture of flying (I'm 200cm tall), and train stations are just a lot more pleasant to be in than airports. These trains looks really nice.

distances 7y ago
Then problem of price still remains before wide popularity for sleepers or even just long daytrips. I'd love to use trains more often, but I'm not willing to pay through the nose. A trip in Central Europe I recently booked would've been over twice the price with a train, with maybe a couple of hours longer travel time when accounting for airport trips and waiting. Second class, just a daytime journey without sleeping. Timewise this would've been fine, but price is not competitive. I'm not sure if the problem is too cheap flights, or too expensive trains.
- m_mueller 7y ago
  I think there's probably some crossover point that makes it more expensive to house people for longer amounts of time with more space required on a train, compared to burn a bunch of hydrocarbons to boost them to 800kph and get rid of them as soon as possible. Not sure whether physics make cheaper pricing possible as long as externalities aren't fully factored into the price of fossil fuels (i.e. flying gets more expensive and trains stay the same).
- chappi42 7y ago
  Considering the melting arctic sea ice, the answer is easy. (Of course flights are not the only reason and I'm not saying that an individual shouldn't choose what is right for him/her, it's a policy/tax matter).
- alkonaut 7y ago
  The EU should force a carbon tax on plane fuel for intra-EU flights and subsidize rail with the money.
  - dewey 7y ago
    This is really the only solution, asking people to cut down on their travel within Europe, switch to the (sometimes more expensive) train is just not going to work without a proper incentive. I'm always comparing the travel times between train and plane. I even account for the time going to the airport, airport transfer etc and if it's roughly the same (which it sometimes is) I'll get on a train but if Ryanair can offer 9 Euro flights (Berlin -> Brussels) this is not going to be a real competition.
  - rjsw 7y ago
    Or just add the same taxes to airplane fuel as is done for fuel used for ground transportation.
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      That would be the most obvious level to set the tax at, yes.
  - cylicbob 7y ago
    The saddest part of this statement is that the European rail system is MASSIVELY subsidized even at the price points that the person you responded to described as "paying out the nose", which of course is a somewhat subjective position for a European to say, because their already lower salaries are massively taxed and to pay for the subsidized rail systems the gleeful Americans can gush about being so cheap when they return to the USA and demand socialism. I'll take Austin's local light rail train as an example to illustrate what I mean. I once looked into the finances and financing sources to get the system stood up, and I worked out that it would be around a $30-$35 trip from one end in the middle of the city to the outskirts of Austin's Leander township if the actual cost of the system were paid for by the rider. It is immensely deceptive and rather dumb that these realities are simply ignored, especially by seemingly otherwise rather intelligent people that congregate here. At the very least, there should not only be the direct cost per ticket if it were not heavily subsidized by taxes of Europeans, which non-Europeans should have to pay, and the price that is subsidized that Europeans pay. It is really rather immensely immoral to ride on the train at a cost that is heavily subsidized by wildly immoral tax levels (e.g., 100% on gasoline, 20% on sales of goods, ~35% of income that is also 70% of what it is in places like the USA).
- oracle2025 7y ago
  I take plenty of trains in Europe, and booking well in advance, I never pay the "full" fare. It is usually quite easy to take advantage of early booking offers.
  - distances 7y ago
    This booking was half a year before the travel date. It would've been cheaper than full price but flights, too, had the early booking advantage.
justaguyhere 7y ago
Taking even a half decent train is worth it if it means avoiding the airport security theater. Also, anyone else get annoyed with tons of shops at airports? I think of airports as mega malls with some planes attached to them :(
- briandear 7y ago
  > Also, anyone else get annoyed with tons of shops at airports? I love it. Frankfurt duty free is pretty much my favorite shopping mall. The shops also give you something to do when you're waiting for connections. Duty Free in Dubai is also a lot of fun. Those shops also bring in revenue which goes to running the airport (your airline ticket is indirectly subsidized by those shops.)

distances 7y ago

Then problem of price still remains before wide popularity for sleepers or even just long daytrips. I'd love to use trains more often, but I'm not willing to pay through the nose. A trip in Central Europe I recently booked would've been over twice the price with a train, with maybe a couple of hours longer travel time when accounting for airport trips and waiting. Second class, just a daytime journey without sleeping. Timewise this would've been fine, but price is not competitive. I'm not sure if the problem is too cheap flights, or too expensive trains.

m_mueller 7y ago
I think there's probably some crossover point that makes it more expensive to house people for longer amounts of time with more space required on a train, compared to burn a bunch of hydrocarbons to boost them to 800kph and get rid of them as soon as possible. Not sure whether physics make cheaper pricing possible as long as externalities aren't fully factored into the price of fossil fuels (i.e. flying gets more expensive and trains stay the same).
chappi42 7y ago
Considering the melting arctic sea ice, the answer is easy. (Of course flights are not the only reason and I'm not saying that an individual shouldn't choose what is right for him/her, it's a policy/tax matter).
alkonaut 7y ago
The EU should force a carbon tax on plane fuel for intra-EU flights and subsidize rail with the money.
- dewey 7y ago
  This is really the only solution, asking people to cut down on their travel within Europe, switch to the (sometimes more expensive) train is just not going to work without a proper incentive. I'm always comparing the travel times between train and plane. I even account for the time going to the airport, airport transfer etc and if it's roughly the same (which it sometimes is) I'll get on a train but if Ryanair can offer 9 Euro flights (Berlin -> Brussels) this is not going to be a real competition.
- rjsw 7y ago
  Or just add the same taxes to airplane fuel as is done for fuel used for ground transportation.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    That would be the most obvious level to set the tax at, yes.
- cylicbob 7y ago
  The saddest part of this statement is that the European rail system is MASSIVELY subsidized even at the price points that the person you responded to described as "paying out the nose", which of course is a somewhat subjective position for a European to say, because their already lower salaries are massively taxed and to pay for the subsidized rail systems the gleeful Americans can gush about being so cheap when they return to the USA and demand socialism. I'll take Austin's local light rail train as an example to illustrate what I mean. I once looked into the finances and financing sources to get the system stood up, and I worked out that it would be around a $30-$35 trip from one end in the middle of the city to the outskirts of Austin's Leander township if the actual cost of the system were paid for by the rider. It is immensely deceptive and rather dumb that these realities are simply ignored, especially by seemingly otherwise rather intelligent people that congregate here. At the very least, there should not only be the direct cost per ticket if it were not heavily subsidized by taxes of Europeans, which non-Europeans should have to pay, and the price that is subsidized that Europeans pay. It is really rather immensely immoral to ride on the train at a cost that is heavily subsidized by wildly immoral tax levels (e.g., 100% on gasoline, 20% on sales of goods, ~35% of income that is also 70% of what it is in places like the USA).
oracle2025 7y ago
I take plenty of trains in Europe, and booking well in advance, I never pay the "full" fare. It is usually quite easy to take advantage of early booking offers.
- distances 7y ago
  This booking was half a year before the travel date. It would've been cheaper than full price but flights, too, had the early booking advantage.

justaguyhere 7y ago

Taking even a half decent train is worth it if it means avoiding the airport security theater. Also, anyone else get annoyed with tons of shops at airports? I think of airports as mega malls with some planes attached to them :(

briandear 7y ago
> Also, anyone else get annoyed with tons of shops at airports? I love it. Frankfurt duty free is pretty much my favorite shopping mall. The shops also give you something to do when you're waiting for connections. Duty Free in Dubai is also a lot of fun. Those shops also bring in revenue which goes to running the airport (your airline ticket is indirectly subsidized by those shops.)