8 ms·

I'm sure it'll be at least 10x the cost of flights. Train travel is just too expensive.

• YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  The article discusses the price: Aumont was reluctant to give ticket prices, but said these would be competitive with that of a short-haul flight, including what he called the “hidden costs”. “This includes what you would have to pay for baggage and things like taxis to and from the airport,” he said. So it will cost more than a flight, but not by much. >> Train travel is just too expensive. Why do you say this? I travel through Europe by train a couple of times a year at least. It's certainly not "too expensive" and if you book early it comes out the same as flying.
  • corobo 5y ago
    > Aumont was reluctant to give ticket prices, but said these would be competitive with that of a short-haul flight If I'm booking time off work and the price is the same I'm going to opt for a longer holiday Good luck Aumont
    • nottorp 5y ago
      Actually you have the same holiday but you're arriving at your destination in the morning after sleeping all the way, instead of waking up early to be at the airport 2 hours before the flight etc. Sleeper trains go at night generally.
      • YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        This, and also for many of us riding the train through picturesque European countryside is part and parcel of taking a holiday, though of course ymmv. I mean, for me taking a holiday is time to slow down and enjoy the sights. I miss a hell of a lot of that when I fly.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• gurkendoktor 5y ago
  It depends. I've just been looking for (non-sleeper) tickets from Germany to Prague and back, found some for a group of five adults for 149€ one-way, three months into the future. The last sleeper train I took was Berlin-Budapest and that was 39€ in a six-bed room, which I personally prefer to economy flights, where the cheapest option is usually somewhere between 10pm and 7am. I can't wait to take another NightJet train. Of course, just going from any place in Germany _to Berlin_ for that sleeper train can cost you upwards of 100€ if you don't book in advance.
• otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  Trains compete with cars, not with airplanes.
  • ploika 5y ago
    High-speed rail can absolutely compete with short-haul flights between (some) European cities.
    • otabdeveloper4 5y ago
      Yes, but that's beside the point. People take the train in the same situations when they drive a car, and travel time isn't always the most important criterion.
      • blackbrokkoli 5y ago
        It is the point. People in Europe very much do consider train vs. plane. I encountered this first hand in personal considerations, family vacation planning and in a policy handout in a big corporation.
        • SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
          Quite a few of my friends in Europe prefer not to fly for environmental reasons as well, which I don't see really discussed a lot here. Oftentimes flight is seen as a last resort mode of transportation.
        • petre 5y ago
          Not in Eastern Europe and the Balkans where trains and rail infra are crap. If I were going from Austria to the Czech Republic, sure. Hungary to Greece? No way.
      • KineticLensman 5y ago
        > People take the train in the same situations when they drive a car Not always. I live on the south coast of the UK. If I had to get to Scottish cities such as Glasgow (450 miles) or Edinburgh in a single day's journey I would fly or take the train, but never consider driving - it would be an absolutely horrendous car journey (edit: at least 8 hours assuming perfect traffic).
• gaff33 5y ago
  If just you look at flight vs train then sure the flight will win. But the train goes from the city centre, and includes a night of accomodation. If you look at taxi + flight + taxi + night at hotel - the train will be attractive. If we correctly price externalities (i.e. environmental cost) then the train should win hands down!
  • choeger 5y ago
    > If we correctly price externalities (i.e. environmental cost) then the train should win hands down! I would not be so certain on that one. The downside of trains is the massive infrastructure requirements. I don't think there are any privately funded and profitable tracks anywhere in Europe. Government pays for this, of course. Of course, if you only account for carbon dioxide, things can look different.
    • YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      "Massive infrastructure requirements" for trains. Compared to what though?
      • choeger 5y ago
        Planes. It is actually rather simple. Airports are extremely expensive of course, but if you build three airports you have three connections. Four airports give six. Five airports ten... Each of these connections require dedicated tracks if you want to go by train.
    • jodrellblank 5y ago
      In Europe, 60% of airports are government owned: https://simpleflying.com/how-airports-make-money/ https://simpleflying.com/how-airports-make-money/ From that page, Heathrow makes half its money from passengers from operating a train line into the city, car rentals, restaurants, retail, parking, VIP lounges. Is that saying, if you couldn't extract money from a captive audience for how inconvenient the airport is, it wouldn't make enough to cover its own running costs? Surely, trains need less infrastructure than cars - a road to every building in the country? Government pays for this, of course. https://greennews.ie/eu-airlines-propped-up-subsidies/ https://greennews.ie/eu-airlines-propped-up-subsidies/ claims that small European airports are not profitable, and are propped up by government subsidies, which RyanAir uses to undercut competitor rates, and they essentially act as a subsidy to RyanAir. Jet fuel is not taxed in the EU (same link), but diesel train fuel is taxed in the UK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_Oil_Duty#Trains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_Oil_Duty#Trains ).
• teekert 5y ago
  Flying is just too cheap ;) It's easy to say, but if you look at the environmental impact, it really is too cheap. If airlines would pay the same tax on fuel as cars and were expected to compensate for their pollution, they'd be a lot less attractive.
  • ArkanExplorer 5y ago
    CO2 analysis of train travel needs to take into account the cost (and emissions) of building and maintaining the rail network. The other factor is that air travel is consistently profitable in the EU, without subsidies. But the reverse is true of rail. The simplest solution is just to impose a $100/ton carbon tax, and let the market figure it out. But EU bureaucrats seem intent on socialism and planned economies instead.
    • toomanybeersies 5y ago
      > But EU bureaucrats seem intent on socialism Socialism isn't really a dirty word in Europe (or anywhere else in the world) like it is in the USA. 20% of elected representatives in the EU are socialists. So it's less "EU bureaucrats intent on socialism" and more the European zeitgeist.
      • zajio1am 5y ago
        > Socialism isn't really a dirty word in Europe Depends on which part of Europe. In former communist countries 'socialism' is associated with economic system of their communist past, while center-left politics is called 'social democracy'.
        • toomanybeersies 5y ago
          I feel like in the 21st century (at least in the context of parties with widespread support and elected officials), there's no practical difference between social democrats and democratic socialists. But you're right, the Eastern European parties call themselves "social democrats" and the Western parties call themselves "socialists"
• globular-toast 5y ago
  What about the cost to your children? Air travel is just too cheap.
  • swiley 5y ago
    My dad worked in DC three days every week (so that's two nights he wasn't home) and still managed to teach me and my siblings math (we were home schooled) and find time for fun with us. I don't want to sound harsh but being away for short periods of time isn't an excuse for bad parenting.
    • justincormack 5y ago
      The OP meant destroying the environment for your children, not time spent with them I think.
    • tokai 5y ago
      The price globular is mentioning is surely regarding CO2 emissions. If it was about the time spend being away from children, the train would never win over the airplane.
  • mytailorisrich 5y ago
    If the problem with air travel is emissions then we ought to work on alternative fuels. That's the positive thing to do. There is too much finger pointing, though. Globally, air travel accounts for only a small proportion of emissions, which means it gets a disproportionate amount of attention at the expense of more important things.
    • xroche 5y ago
      > If the problem with air travel is emissions then we ought to work on alternative fuels. They don't exist yet. > Globally, air travel accounts for only a small proportion of emissions Air travel is 2% of all global emissions. This is huge for such a small sector.
      • 5y ago
• swiley 5y ago
  It really depends on where you're going. On the east coast going between DC and Richmond to visit my parents is <$100 and cheaper than driving or flying. Also airports really suck now and I'm happy to avoid them.
  • handrous 5y ago
    I envy those East-coast Amtrak routes. Amtrak's so damn much more pleasant than flying coach[0] but in most of the country the trains travel fairly slowly to begin with, which might be OK if they weren't also routinely subject to 50-100% increases in stated travel time due to having to yield to freight traffic, making them not just way slower than driving, but also extremely unpredictable (so, very inconvenient to anyone waiting for you on the other end) [0] Of course, being stabbed with a hot poker is more pleasant than flying coach, but Amtrak's a lot more pleasant.
• calpaterson 5y ago
  After the politically inevitable taxes on short-haul flights are brought in, it may not be. As Hebert Stein said (on a different subject): if it can't go on forever it will stop. Railways also benefit from considerable cost economies of scale, similar to the post office, the internet and of course...short haul flights. I wonder what the cost of flying will be when passenger seat miles drop by a factor of 5-10.
  • Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    Why do you think the taxes are inevitable? Not only are short-haul flights in Eastern Europe not heavily taxed, the building and running of the airports has been heavily subsidized. It has more than paid for itself by bringing tourism income to the region, and encouraging the diaspora to regularly revisit and spend the money they have earned abroad.
    • MereInterest 5y ago
      Higher per-mile carbon emissions. Paying for itself through tourism doesn't count the externality of climate change.
• SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
  Realistically from what I've seen in Sweden, this isn't necessarily true. I'm sure it depends where you are going. I will be taking the night train this summer to go into Lapland from Copenhagen area and the round trip cost for my ticket was about $235 USD which includes a transfer in Stockholm. Similar plane tickets were priced roughly the same with long layover in Stockholm. I suspect it will not be possible for the night train to ever beat a short haul point to point on a Ryanair bike seat halfway across Europe between two major cities. But for anything more remote the night train will probably be quite competitive. After all, the infrastructure already exists for the most part.
• toomanybeersies 5y ago
  That's a bit of a false comparison though. Alongside your flight, you also need to pay for a taxis/Ubers/trains to and from the airport on each side, and a night in a hotel. That can easily add an extra 300 Euro to your trip (one way).
  • choeger 5y ago
    That hotel night might not be necessary when you take a plane, though. Maybe you just safe a day of vacation instead? In that case, how much money does the plane trip safe you?
    • toomanybeersies 5y ago
      In that case, you can take a plane. You could even take the overnight train one way, and fly the other.
• tgv 5y ago
  Amsterdam-Vienna has tickets available in August for €49,90 (per direction). Not bad.