5 ms·

> Some 4.5 million UK tourists use the Channel Tunnel every year, with 1.6 million trucks transporting goods. > “It put international rail travel back in the g

by xyzzyz 5y ago

> Some 4.5 million UK tourists use the Channel Tunnel every year, with 1.6 million trucks transporting goods. > “It put international rail travel back in the game," says Mark Smith, founder of rail travel website The Man in Seat 61. I don’t know what game is international rail in UK playing, but most certainly it’s a losing one. 4.5 million passengers is only a quarter of what London Luton airport is seen annually, which itself is only fifth most popular airport in UK. Quite apparently, very few travelers choose rail, relative to airlines.

lostlogin 5y ago
It’s a shame they choose air over rail. We chose air when cash strapped, but the train was superior in every other way. We arrived in the middle of the city we wanted to go to, it was quicker to get there and there way space and comfort. 10/10 from me. Time in an airport is a waste of life from my perspective.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  London - Paris is fast and convenient indeed. But train becomes slower as soon as you need to catch a connection in Paris. I don't like airports either, but I'd rather spend time in an airport than in a train station and Paris subway with all my luggage. That being said, train should be the preferred option due to lower CO2 emissions. It's a shame prices don't reflect that.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    > I'd rather spend time in an airport than in a train station and Paris subway with all my luggage. But once the plane lands you then need to get on a train or brave a taxi. Having tried the taxi, that’s out.
  - cameronh90 5y ago
    Trains are just really expensive, sadly. Trains are subsidised in most places, either by publicly funding the huge amounts of infrastructure required, or by subsidising the operations. Meanwhile air travel is usually taxed overall. Yet despite this, flying is often less than half the cost of a train. I'm all for taxing air travel CO2, but I suspect it would lead to quicker zero carbon fuel rather than more rail travel long term.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      Air travel is often directly subsidised too. Airline bailouts happen, and the the use of land, pollution of the air and the noise they cause are not paid for in full.
JimDabell 5y ago
Why is this surprising? You can get to dozens of different countries in a few hours by flying from Luton. Unless you’re counting Northern Ireland to Ireland, all international rail journeys go through France and take much longer. You can go for a cheap holiday to Alicante in a few hours from Luton. How long would that take by train? It’s quick and easy to get all around Europe by train if you live in, say, Germany. Simple geography rules that out for the UK.
- fabioborellini 5y ago
  It takes roughly the same time to reach Spain from London and southwest Germany, though. Meaning that London is closer to Spain by rail than most of Germany. Eurostar and (the rest of) the French high speed network really compensate some simple geography. Of course the journeys to southern Spain take too long to appeal the mainstream, and it is easier to purchase plane tickets, too. To answer your question, it takes 12 hours to reach Barcelona from London and a few more the next day to reach Alicante…
  - ginnungagap 5y ago
    > Eurostar and (the rest of) the French high speed network really compensate some simple geography. Wouldn't German travelers also take advantage of French high speed trains when travelling to Spain?
    - alexanderchr 5y ago
      Problem is you have to go through Paris du to the way the French HSR is built. And time-wise London is closer to Paris than most German cities.
      - ginnungagap 5y ago
        Makes sense, the French railway metric strikes again...
  - JimDabell 5y ago
spzb 5y ago
Eurostar trains, as opposed to the drive-on-drive-off Eurotunnel ones, have always been prohibitively expensive whenever I've looked at them. Maybe it's a viable option for the London, Paris, Brussels executives who put it on expenses but for us plebs it's cheaper to fly or drive.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  Flying by plane is incredible cheap compared to railway not only on that connection unfortunately. The plane business is extremely cost effective organized (not only thanks to cheap players like RyanAir) and benefits a lot from state sponsored infrastructure (airports, ATC) and subsidized resources (no Kerosene tax) compared to railways which need more infrastructure (tracks everywhere instead of "simply" using air) and need to refinance having trains going "everywhere" The railway ticket to and from the airport is almost more expensive than a flight across the continent ...
  - desas 5y ago
    I'm flying from the north of the continent to the south soon (Manchester to Sicily, Sicily to Gatwick). My train tickets to get to and from the airports in the UK are £160, my air tickets are £120
- gmac 5y ago
  The train cost is often prohibitive, but can be done at a reasonable cost if you book at the right time (generally a few months ahead), especially if you’re a bit flexible on times. For example, I can visit family in Lausanne in the summer for £180 return from London. That’s a bit more than EasyJet, but not hugely more, especially when you factor in transport to and from the airport and any hold luggage you’ll pay extra for.
steffandroid 5y ago
"4.5 million UK tourists" is not the same as total passengers. Individual tourists can make multiple journeys, and overseas tourists are excluded from this figure. Over 20 million passengers use the tunnel annually.

by xyzzyz 5y ago

lostlogin 5y ago

It’s a shame they choose air over rail. We chose air when cash strapped, but the train was superior in every other way. We arrived in the middle of the city we wanted to go to, it was quicker to get there and there way space and comfort. 10/10 from me. Time in an airport is a waste of life from my perspective.

yodsanklai 5y ago
London - Paris is fast and convenient indeed. But train becomes slower as soon as you need to catch a connection in Paris. I don't like airports either, but I'd rather spend time in an airport than in a train station and Paris subway with all my luggage. That being said, train should be the preferred option due to lower CO2 emissions. It's a shame prices don't reflect that.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > I'd rather spend time in an airport than in a train station and Paris subway with all my luggage. But once the plane lands you then need to get on a train or brave a taxi. Having tried the taxi, that’s out.
- cameronh90 5y ago
  Trains are just really expensive, sadly. Trains are subsidised in most places, either by publicly funding the huge amounts of infrastructure required, or by subsidising the operations. Meanwhile air travel is usually taxed overall. Yet despite this, flying is often less than half the cost of a train. I'm all for taxing air travel CO2, but I suspect it would lead to quicker zero carbon fuel rather than more rail travel long term.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    Air travel is often directly subsidised too. Airline bailouts happen, and the the use of land, pollution of the air and the noise they cause are not paid for in full.

JimDabell 5y ago

Why is this surprising? You can get to dozens of different countries in a few hours by flying from Luton. Unless you’re counting Northern Ireland to Ireland, all international rail journeys go through France and take much longer. You can go for a cheap holiday to Alicante in a few hours from Luton. How long would that take by train? It’s quick and easy to get all around Europe by train if you live in, say, Germany. Simple geography rules that out for the UK.

fabioborellini 5y ago
It takes roughly the same time to reach Spain from London and southwest Germany, though. Meaning that London is closer to Spain by rail than most of Germany. Eurostar and (the rest of) the French high speed network really compensate some simple geography. Of course the journeys to southern Spain take too long to appeal the mainstream, and it is easier to purchase plane tickets, too. To answer your question, it takes 12 hours to reach Barcelona from London and a few more the next day to reach Alicante…
- ginnungagap 5y ago
  > Eurostar and (the rest of) the French high speed network really compensate some simple geography. Wouldn't German travelers also take advantage of French high speed trains when travelling to Spain?
  - alexanderchr 5y ago
    Problem is you have to go through Paris du to the way the French HSR is built. And time-wise London is closer to Paris than most German cities.
    - ginnungagap 5y ago
      Makes sense, the French railway metric strikes again...
- JimDabell 5y ago

spzb 5y ago

Eurostar trains, as opposed to the drive-on-drive-off Eurotunnel ones, have always been prohibitively expensive whenever I've looked at them. Maybe it's a viable option for the London, Paris, Brussels executives who put it on expenses but for us plebs it's cheaper to fly or drive.

johannes1234321 5y ago
Flying by plane is incredible cheap compared to railway not only on that connection unfortunately. The plane business is extremely cost effective organized (not only thanks to cheap players like RyanAir) and benefits a lot from state sponsored infrastructure (airports, ATC) and subsidized resources (no Kerosene tax) compared to railways which need more infrastructure (tracks everywhere instead of "simply" using air) and need to refinance having trains going "everywhere" The railway ticket to and from the airport is almost more expensive than a flight across the continent ...
- desas 5y ago
  I'm flying from the north of the continent to the south soon (Manchester to Sicily, Sicily to Gatwick). My train tickets to get to and from the airports in the UK are £160, my air tickets are £120
gmac 5y ago
The train cost is often prohibitive, but can be done at a reasonable cost if you book at the right time (generally a few months ahead), especially if you’re a bit flexible on times. For example, I can visit family in Lausanne in the summer for £180 return from London. That’s a bit more than EasyJet, but not hugely more, especially when you factor in transport to and from the airport and any hold luggage you’ll pay extra for.

steffandroid 5y ago

"4.5 million UK tourists" is not the same as total passengers. Individual tourists can make multiple journeys, and overseas tourists are excluded from this figure. Over 20 million passengers use the tunnel annually.