5 ms·
especially when they take double the time a normal airplane would. If trains took double (or even 3 times) what an airplane took they would definitely be an al
by dagw 3y ago
especially when they take double the time a normal airplane would.
If trains took double (or even 3 times) what an airplane took they would definitely be an alternative. Given the choice between a 1-2 hour flight and a 3-5 hour train ride, I virtually always choose the train. Especially since the train drops me in the centre of the city I'm going to
The problem is they often take 10+ times what the airplane takes. From where I live to Paris or Zurich is either a 2 hour direct flight from the airport 30 minutes down the road or literally 20+ hours and 5-8 transfers by train.
- Fluorescence 3y ago> 5-8 transfers by train I don't think I needed that many transfers to travel by train from Shanghai to London.
- freilanzer 3y agoAnd they're also more expensive and less reliable than plains.
- freilanzer 3y ago*planes...
- pyr0hu 3y agoespecially if you take into consideration the time spent on the airport throught security, checkin, baggage, etc, it will be almost double that 1-2 hour which is the flight only
- Cockbrand 3y agoAbsolutely, so much dead time! On a train, you can pretty much sit comfortably and get some work done for the entire ride.
- etiennebausson 3y agoParis-Zurich is 4H, without any transfer, 5 times a day. (plus quite a few more of options under 5H with 1 ou 2 transfers) You are making better time by train, unless your actual destination was Zurich's airport instead of Zurich.