4 ms·
I'm not so sure. I took the fated Trenhotel Joan Miró that the author talks about. It was a little over 100€ and covered the distance in twelve hours, like the
by aclimatt 13y ago
I'm not so sure.
I took the fated Trenhotel Joan Miró that the author talks about. It was a little over 100€ and covered the distance in twelve hours, like the author said. After getting off that train, economically I could not fathom why anybody would ever subject themselves to that experience again.
The 100€ got me a seat in the back of the train in a semi-reclined seat (the least expensive ticket I could buy). I booked it about four weeks in advance. For 150€, I could get an actual bed to sleep in (four to a compartment), and the price/service level went up from there. If the train had free food or even just free water, Wi-Fi, showers, and such like you describe (at least at that price level), it'd potentially be a different experience. But Trenhotel's stock is about as old as it gets, and what you get for the base price of 100€ makes for quite an unfortunate twelve hours.
I just went to Vueling, and I can fly from Barcelona to Paris for 40€ in two hours. Even with security, time to/from the airport and such, I'm still saving time and money. Copious amounts of baggage is the only thing left out, but I could pay 100€ to check piles and piles of bags, and now I spend slightly more than the Trenhotel and arrive five times faster.
High speed trains make sense for semi-long distances. Paris to Amsterdam is a great example. Three hours on modern equipment is very doable, and a plane ride can't beat that in time (fixed costs of security and required early arrival are too high). Comfort is superior, and the price will come down. The author makes the point that the cost is 2x but the travel time is only slightly faster. These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh out of the factory. Give it a few years, and they will come down. I'll bet you the old "vintage" routes that the author pines over were pretty darn expensive when they too were first inaugurated.
For the <4 hour trips, high speed rail is excellent, and I believe those prices will fall. But anything longer than that, forget the night trains. They're only semi-useful for tourists and backpackers, and I'm shocked they still operate. I'll fly, thanks.
- secabeen 13y agoInteresting. If trains only make sense for trips of <4 hours, how does that impact the California High-Speed Rail project?
- moheeb 13y agoHigher speeds!
- gsnedders 13y agoa) Stop less. b) Take a more direct route. The distance between SF and LA is such that it /should/ take under 4 hours.
- maaku 13y agoLove to know a <4hr route that you can do even at safe slightly-over-the-speed-limit speeds. (CA native).
- myrandomcomment 13y agoI have done San Jose to San Diego in 5.5 hours. Not going to tell you how fast I was driving.
- tsotha 13y agoNo. You will never make it in four hours. 5.5 is about the minimum.
- gsnedders 13y agoWhy not? 350 miles in a straight line, 380 by road; Paris to Avignon is 390 miles by rail, journey time of 2:39 in service. I don't see why 5.5 hours is needed?
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoIf nations applied the same silly security theater to trains that they force upon aircraft, the train advantage would be cut to ~2hr trips.
- lmm 13y agoTrains are harder to crash into buildings, so hopefully sanity will prevail. (The Madrid train bombs happened and no excessive security was applied as a result)
- switch007 13y agoSpain does have slightly enhanced security for long-distance train journeys. At Malaga, for example, there are "security" checks and closing times. Advice by RailEurope is to arrive 30 mins prior to departure...
- dragonwriter 13y agoA hijacked train doesn't make as good an improvised missile as a hijacked plane, so the threat profile isn't the same -- so its not surprising that the security treatment is different.
- comicjk 13y agoFar easier just to shoot down the planes, assuming reinforced doors, air marshals, and passengers aren't enough. No, I don't think there's anything rational about it, beyond the rational calculation of shirt-term advantage by politicians.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Far easier just to shoot down the planes Not if they are taken control of near their targets. Prevention is clearly better than response. > No, I don't think there's anything rational about it To the extent that some of the actual measures are theater, they are theater that has a real reason for being presented in the particular context they are presented in. Some of them may be irrational as security measures, but they aren't completely arbitrary.
- yread 13y ago> These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh out of the factory. Well Thalys trains were made in 1995-6 and it shows. They actually have comparable leg room as airplanes (at least with legacy carriers)
- mcv 13y agoSometimes, due to the variable pricing, a 1st class Thalys ticket can be as cheap as a 2nd class ticket. My wife and I traveled 1st class from Amsterdam to Paris, which was extremely comfortable, and came with free wifi, food and drink, and probably some other luxuries. The return trip was 2nd class, which meant you had to pay extra for wifi (despite many Dutch intercity trains having free wifi these days), and lacked the free food and drink. Not sure if it was cramped. Still better than a plane, as far as I recall. But next time, we'll definitely be looking out for cheap 1st class tickets.