12 ms·

Exactly the reason why the (much slower) train often makes more sense. Sure, the train from Amsterdam to Berlin is six hours. But you only have to be at the sta

by bergie 13y ago

Exactly the reason why the (much slower) train often makes more sense. Sure, the train from Amsterdam to Berlin is six hours. But you only have to be at the station to catch it before it leaves, and it both leaves and arrives right in the center. We tried this returning from a conference there last fall, and the hotel-door-to-home-door advantage of flying was less than 30 minutes. And on train there was more space, better food, and a bar. Not to mention that there was power and nobody told me to shut down my laptop at any point :-)

TheAnimus 13y ago
Well this is a great example of when I do pay for the premium. If I am going to Amsterdamn from London, I'll fly CityJet from LCY. London City Airport is brilliant. Mostly because its only used by frequent travellers, no people pushing right up to the baggage belt here, people all know they can spot and politely walk up to grab. If your going to Antwerpen, their local airport is brilliant as well. LCY if you've only got carry on, you need only arrive 15 min before your flight. Most routes flown have 6-10 flights a day. I have left the city (London) at 6pm, and been checked in to my hotel, having a nice trappist beer by 9pm on more than one occasion. When you consider you can do the London to Antwerpn route for £120, return, including baggage, it is really brilliant. It's a 45 min flight total. The thing here is, its the ground facilities that make it so painless.
GhotiFish 13y ago
this is my position. If I have internet and a power outlet, one place is as good as another, why take the hit on degrading security, exorbitant fee's, and cramped conditions for a few extra hours? Trains are efficient. We need to use them more.
- pyre 13y ago
  Trains have degraded security though. Once a plane leaves, someone has to be on the plane or have had access to it beforehand to affect the flight. You can defend against this through security at those specific points. On a train, the entire trip is over miles of tracks which 'anyone' can access. Security at boarding doesn't affect the attack surface area as much. That said, I might prefer train travel to flying.
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    "Degrading" security not "degraded" security. I think the post you are replying to is implying that they would rather take the small risk of being blown up on a train over the certainty of being treated like a terrorist at the airport.
  - PanMan 13y ago
    On the other hand, if there is an issue with a train, it can break. Stopping a plane when there is an issue is a lot more hassle.
  - mariuolo 13y ago
    I'd rather face terrorists than TSA.
  - sitharus 13y ago
    I wouldn't call it degraded security, it's just more appropriate to the risk vs convenience tradeoff.
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    > On a train, the entire trip is over miles of tracks which 'anyone' can access Indeed, but trains, even high speed ones, are also very robust compared to airplanes. Even if somebody does manage to get access to the track (not so trivial in many cases), and trigger an explosion on the track with good enough timing to catch the train as it goes by, and manage to derail it, there's still a good chance that all or most passengers would survive the crash. Similarly, with the size of bomb one might smuggle on board a train, the likely effect would be to just kill a few passengers in the immediate vicinity of the explosion; the train itself would probably be just fine. So basically not much different than setting off an explosion at a random restaurant... For a terrorist, the odds just aren't all that great with trains, which presumably is why there have been so few attempts at doing such a thing. One of the reasons terrorism is so scary on airplanes is that they feel (and are) so fragile that it magnifies the effect of any attack greatly.
city41 13y ago
This works better in Europe than it does in America. As most trips here on train or car take multiple days. Where as you can fly anywhere in the country in one day. Once you cross into multi-day territory, the train is often too impractical to be used. Which is a real shame, as I really enjoy travelling by train.
- mathattack 13y ago
  For Northeast travel in the US, the train is more practical. Pretty much anything from DC to Boston is less painful on the train. You get a seat an continuous alone time. This holds less on broader travel.
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    Exactly. The American/Canada east coast and great lakes region is dense enough that an upgrade rail network could really work for us - Chicago, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, Detroit, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa... each of these places have another major city about 3-4 hours drive away. Investment in the local passenger rail network could be worthwhile.
  - eli 13y ago
    Not cheap, though. The train from DC to NY can cost twice that of a plane, depending on the specifics.
    - mathattack 13y ago
      I may be wrong, but I put the medians at a similar price. Both systems can go cheaper or more expensive. This is a little frustrating because 1 hour between major metro areas can cost 50-100x the 1 hour subway ride from the Bronx to Coney Island. In part this is because the train sets it's prices based on competition from airplanes.
      - nine_k 13y ago
        MTA is heavily subsidized (it only covers ~50% of its expenses from its operational income), AmTrak is probably not. Also, a train e.g. from NYC to Philadelphia looks inside much more like a plane (seats, tables, power sockets, wifi) than like a subway train, and obviously moves much faster. This all ought to cost more, even at zero profit point.
Nux 13y ago
+1 for trains! I dread airplanes and airports! We need more Paneuropean train routes; nice, comfy trains running on electric power.
- aidenn0 13y ago
  Damn you Western Europeans complaining about train routes. Here in the US the only remotely usable train corridor is from DC to Boston, and even there the best moment was when they deployed "high speed" trains that only exceed 200kph for very short stretches due to a design error. [edited to fix 100 vs 200 kph typo]
hilko 13y ago
I travel between Amsterdam and Berlin quite frequently and I've all but stopped flying. Yes, it's a bit faster, but it's much less comfortable.

by bergie 13y ago

TheAnimus 13y ago

Well this is a great example of when I do pay for the premium. If I am going to Amsterdamn from London, I'll fly CityJet from LCY. London City Airport is brilliant. Mostly because its only used by frequent travellers, no people pushing right up to the baggage belt here, people all know they can spot and politely walk up to grab. If your going to Antwerpen, their local airport is brilliant as well. LCY if you've only got carry on, you need only arrive 15 min before your flight. Most routes flown have 6-10 flights a day. I have left the city (London) at 6pm, and been checked in to my hotel, having a nice trappist beer by 9pm on more than one occasion. When you consider you can do the London to Antwerpn route for £120, return, including baggage, it is really brilliant. It's a 45 min flight total. The thing here is, its the ground facilities that make it so painless.

GhotiFish 13y ago

this is my position. If I have internet and a power outlet, one place is as good as another, why take the hit on degrading security, exorbitant fee's, and cramped conditions for a few extra hours? Trains are efficient. We need to use them more.

pyre 13y ago
Trains have degraded security though. Once a plane leaves, someone has to be on the plane or have had access to it beforehand to affect the flight. You can defend against this through security at those specific points. On a train, the entire trip is over miles of tracks which 'anyone' can access. Security at boarding doesn't affect the attack surface area as much. That said, I might prefer train travel to flying.
- aidenn0 13y ago
  "Degrading" security not "degraded" security. I think the post you are replying to is implying that they would rather take the small risk of being blown up on a train over the certainty of being treated like a terrorist at the airport.
- PanMan 13y ago
  On the other hand, if there is an issue with a train, it can break. Stopping a plane when there is an issue is a lot more hassle.
- mariuolo 13y ago
  I'd rather face terrorists than TSA.
- sitharus 13y ago
  I wouldn't call it degraded security, it's just more appropriate to the risk vs convenience tradeoff.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  > On a train, the entire trip is over miles of tracks which 'anyone' can access Indeed, but trains, even high speed ones, are also very robust compared to airplanes. Even if somebody does manage to get access to the track (not so trivial in many cases), and trigger an explosion on the track with good enough timing to catch the train as it goes by, and manage to derail it, there's still a good chance that all or most passengers would survive the crash. Similarly, with the size of bomb one might smuggle on board a train, the likely effect would be to just kill a few passengers in the immediate vicinity of the explosion; the train itself would probably be just fine. So basically not much different than setting off an explosion at a random restaurant... For a terrorist, the odds just aren't all that great with trains, which presumably is why there have been so few attempts at doing such a thing. One of the reasons terrorism is so scary on airplanes is that they feel (and are) so fragile that it magnifies the effect of any attack greatly.

city41 13y ago

This works better in Europe than it does in America. As most trips here on train or car take multiple days. Where as you can fly anywhere in the country in one day. Once you cross into multi-day territory, the train is often too impractical to be used. Which is a real shame, as I really enjoy travelling by train.

mathattack 13y ago
For Northeast travel in the US, the train is more practical. Pretty much anything from DC to Boston is less painful on the train. You get a seat an continuous alone time. This holds less on broader travel.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Exactly. The American/Canada east coast and great lakes region is dense enough that an upgrade rail network could really work for us - Chicago, Boston, NYC, Pittsburgh, Detroit, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa... each of these places have another major city about 3-4 hours drive away. Investment in the local passenger rail network could be worthwhile.
- eli 13y ago
  Not cheap, though. The train from DC to NY can cost twice that of a plane, depending on the specifics.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    I may be wrong, but I put the medians at a similar price. Both systems can go cheaper or more expensive. This is a little frustrating because 1 hour between major metro areas can cost 50-100x the 1 hour subway ride from the Bronx to Coney Island. In part this is because the train sets it's prices based on competition from airplanes.
    - nine_k 13y ago
      MTA is heavily subsidized (it only covers ~50% of its expenses from its operational income), AmTrak is probably not. Also, a train e.g. from NYC to Philadelphia looks inside much more like a plane (seats, tables, power sockets, wifi) than like a subway train, and obviously moves much faster. This all ought to cost more, even at zero profit point.

Nux 13y ago

+1 for trains! I dread airplanes and airports! We need more Paneuropean train routes; nice, comfy trains running on electric power.

aidenn0 13y ago
Damn you Western Europeans complaining about train routes. Here in the US the only remotely usable train corridor is from DC to Boston, and even there the best moment was when they deployed "high speed" trains that only exceed 200kph for very short stretches due to a design error. [edited to fix 100 vs 200 kph typo]

hilko 13y ago

I travel between Amsterdam and Berlin quite frequently and I've all but stopped flying. Yes, it's a bit faster, but it's much less comfortable.