5 ms·

Trains compete with cars, not with airplanes.

by otabdeveloper4 5y ago

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).
  - exoque 5y ago
    And some people take the train instead of a plane. And I did even in the US.
CaptainZapp 5y ago
Bruxelles to Paris : 90 minutes, Zurich to Paris : 244 minutes, London to Paris 149 minutes I could go on. Show me where a car is competitive for any of those routes. In addition, not even plane is competitive if you consider the airport to city transfer and back. It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG. Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.
  - CaptainZapp 5y ago
    Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos. Compared with terminal 2F it's actually pleasant. 2F is a packed confused mess with no seating whatsoever. Well, there are some seats by my impression was 1 seat per 10 passengers. My observation is that I'm livid in 100% of all cases flying from there once I'm boarding the plane. Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful. Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience. One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos. That must have been where we were. If that's "pretty bad", then no more so than any other European airport IME/AFAICR. > Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful. We took the RER both ways. Worked pretty well, I thought. > Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). We did, and I can't recall any problem with that. > Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience. IIRC we used the ticket-vending machines on the platform. Sure, the UI is usually somewhat cryptic on those anywhere -- did we overpay, again? Can't recall, but quite possible -- but no worse at CDG than anywhere else I can recall. > One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience. Me neither; Helsinki - Paris and back. Either we had exceptional luck... Or maybe you've got a slightly irrational bee in your bonnet about CDG.
iso1631 5y ago
Depends on the route -- eurostar from London to Paris/Brussels knocked a lot of flights out. Vey few would choose to drive from Manchester to London when the cheap train (£45 return no time restrictions) is quicker and the fast train is half the time of driving, but people do fly because west london to west manchester is quicker than schelpping to Euston and out from Picadilly - at least until HS2 drops it to under an hour and connects with crossrail.

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).
- exoque 5y ago
  And some people take the train instead of a plane. And I did even in the US.

CaptainZapp 5y ago

Bruxelles to Paris : 90 minutes, Zurich to Paris : 244 minutes, London to Paris 149 minutes I could go on. Show me where a car is competitive for any of those routes. In addition, not even plane is competitive if you consider the airport to city transfer and back. It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

CRConrad 5y ago
> It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG. Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.
- CaptainZapp 5y ago
  Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos. Compared with terminal 2F it's actually pleasant. 2F is a packed confused mess with no seating whatsoever. Well, there are some seats by my impression was 1 seat per 10 passengers. My observation is that I'm livid in 100% of all cases flying from there once I'm boarding the plane. Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful. Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience. One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos. That must have been where we were. If that's "pretty bad", then no more so than any other European airport IME/AFAICR. > Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful. We took the RER both ways. Worked pretty well, I thought. > Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). We did, and I can't recall any problem with that. > Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience. IIRC we used the ticket-vending machines on the platform. Sure, the UI is usually somewhat cryptic on those anywhere -- did we overpay, again? Can't recall, but quite possible -- but no worse at CDG than anywhere else I can recall. > One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience. Me neither; Helsinki - Paris and back. Either we had exceptional luck... Or maybe you've got a slightly irrational bee in your bonnet about CDG.

iso1631 5y ago

Depends on the route -- eurostar from London to Paris/Brussels knocked a lot of flights out. Vey few would choose to drive from Manchester to London when the cheap train (£45 return no time restrictions) is quicker and the fast train is half the time of driving, but people do fly because west london to west manchester is quicker than schelpping to Euston and out from Picadilly - at least until HS2 drops it to under an hour and connects with crossrail.