4 ms·

In the US we really don't have any rail alternative to flying. I'd love to know how European travellers thinks and weigh up rail (which seems relatively fast an

In the US we really don't have any rail alternative to flying. I'd love to know how European travellers thinks and weigh up rail (which seems relatively fast and efficient) vs flying. Do you think the two are interchangeable services? Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ?

lmm 12y ago
I'll take the Eurostar from London to Paris even if it's slightly slower because it's just a nicer experience. But much further and I'll probably fly unless I'm making a point of taking a train for fun. The only other case would be if I'm taking a lot of luggage as that's much easier to do on a train. Back when I only had a big bulky laptop I might prefer a train to work on but these days my ultrabook is usable on a plane.
comrade1 12y ago
It just depends on the distance. Fro Zurich and Basel we take the train to Paris, Milan, Frankfurt, even Lille, but to go to Berlin, Hamburg, San Sebastián, we fly. So 3 to 6 hours we take the train. More than that we tend to fly. I can get a lot more work done on the train than flying.
- TillE 12y ago
  > So 3 to 6 hours we take the train. More than that we tend to fly. Yep. I could tolerate the longer travel times, but long distance train travel gets really expensive really quickly. For the price of a round-trip train ticket across Germany (Berlin to Cologne, around €100), I could also fly to London, Paris, Amsterdam, etc.
DanBC 12y ago
The budget airlines provide such a customer hostile experience that many people prefer trains. These are (England) sometimes awful, but mostly okay and can be nice. Commuting tends to be worse than the occaisional train journey. The baffling fare structure drastically needs reform -- the same journey can either cost £27 or £72 -- these will be the same class on the same day, just different times. It's frustrating. I like the Virgin trains - I've only ever had an unfun experience on one when the aircon broke. I really hate GWS and I will try to avoid using them where possible, even using a coach would be better. (Virgin trains have power sockets; GWS don't; even a National Express coach has power sockets and free wifi)
- mcintyre1994 12y ago
  > the same journey can either cost £27 or £72 -- these will be the same class on the same day, just different times. Or just bought at different times. I recently saw a return train ticket for £50, the next day it was £90, the next back to £50. I bought it then so not sure what happened after that. Admittedly that example was travelling over easter but it's a consistent annoyance.
rtpg 12y ago
In France there's the issue of train lines basically starting and ending in Paris mean that flights are pretty quick cutting across the country (Lyon-Nantes for example). But I think most people see domestic flights as a bother more than anything. The love for trains shows in the stats (second biggest per capita usage of trains after Japan), train stations are usually in the dead-center of town, and you don't have to deal with luggage limits.
masklinn 12y ago
> Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ? For modern non-maglev high-speed train (>300km/h top speed), 1500~2000km is the limit assuming "severe" airport security. HST is very competitive up to ~1000km, then it tapers off as the faster plane speed compensates for the security measures and lack of comfort. Of course price is also a big factor, and barebones budget airlines can provide stupid low prices.
vidarh 12y ago
When I used to fly from London to San Francisco regularly, I had everything down to a routine including the exact amount I could manage to squeeze into carry-on only so I could walk straight out at the destination. Despite that, it took me 16 hours door-to-door for an 11 hour flight. So even with a plane trip that long, about 1/3 of the total travel time was on the ground. Of course that depends on your distance to the airport, but there train stations very often have a solid advantage. E.g. going from where I live in London to anywhere I'd like to actually go to in Paris via the Eurostar is faster because the train terminals on both ends are more conveniently located. So the answer is "it depends" but unless you live much closer to the airport than the relevant train terminal it generally takes a quite long flight before air travel is faster. Even then, I will often prefer train if it is "only" a bit slower, because of perceived convenience and comfort (e.g. I'd easily pick one hour more on a train vs. 30 minutes shorter journey if the latter involves additional legs, such as getting off a plane and lugging my bags to a train or bus station to get in to town).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
elmarschraml 12y ago
Rails is faster for a rail trip duration of up to 4 hours (no security, no lines, no checkin, plus you arrive right in the city centre). Which, depending on the route, comes to somewhere between 200 and 450 miles of distance. As for me personally, I prefer to go by train even if it takes a little longer. Flying means most of the time spent is lost in queues and transit, whereas a train trip means a single long stretch of uninterrupted time, which is much more relaxing and/or productive. In terms of price, it's usually pretty much the same. If you book ahead and get a good deal, a flight might actually be cheaper. On the other hand, if you need to travel a popular route on short notice, a flight will be outrageously expensive, whereas a train ticket costs the same even if booked 5 minutes before departure.

lmm 12y ago

I'll take the Eurostar from London to Paris even if it's slightly slower because it's just a nicer experience. But much further and I'll probably fly unless I'm making a point of taking a train for fun. The only other case would be if I'm taking a lot of luggage as that's much easier to do on a train. Back when I only had a big bulky laptop I might prefer a train to work on but these days my ultrabook is usable on a plane.

comrade1 12y ago

It just depends on the distance. Fro Zurich and Basel we take the train to Paris, Milan, Frankfurt, even Lille, but to go to Berlin, Hamburg, San Sebastián, we fly. So 3 to 6 hours we take the train. More than that we tend to fly. I can get a lot more work done on the train than flying.

TillE 12y ago
> So 3 to 6 hours we take the train. More than that we tend to fly. Yep. I could tolerate the longer travel times, but long distance train travel gets really expensive really quickly. For the price of a round-trip train ticket across Germany (Berlin to Cologne, around €100), I could also fly to London, Paris, Amsterdam, etc.

DanBC 12y ago

The budget airlines provide such a customer hostile experience that many people prefer trains. These are (England) sometimes awful, but mostly okay and can be nice. Commuting tends to be worse than the occaisional train journey. The baffling fare structure drastically needs reform -- the same journey can either cost £27 or £72 -- these will be the same class on the same day, just different times. It's frustrating. I like the Virgin trains - I've only ever had an unfun experience on one when the aircon broke. I really hate GWS and I will try to avoid using them where possible, even using a coach would be better. (Virgin trains have power sockets; GWS don't; even a National Express coach has power sockets and free wifi)

mcintyre1994 12y ago
> the same journey can either cost £27 or £72 -- these will be the same class on the same day, just different times. Or just bought at different times. I recently saw a return train ticket for £50, the next day it was £90, the next back to £50. I bought it then so not sure what happened after that. Admittedly that example was travelling over easter but it's a consistent annoyance.

rtpg 12y ago

In France there's the issue of train lines basically starting and ending in Paris mean that flights are pretty quick cutting across the country (Lyon-Nantes for example). But I think most people see domestic flights as a bother more than anything. The love for trains shows in the stats (second biggest per capita usage of trains after Japan), train stations are usually in the dead-center of town, and you don't have to deal with luggage limits.

masklinn 12y ago

> Is there a magical breaking point (more than 500km's distance etc) ? For modern non-maglev high-speed train (>300km/h top speed), 1500~2000km is the limit assuming "severe" airport security. HST is very competitive up to ~1000km, then it tapers off as the faster plane speed compensates for the security measures and lack of comfort. Of course price is also a big factor, and barebones budget airlines can provide stupid low prices.

vidarh 12y ago

When I used to fly from London to San Francisco regularly, I had everything down to a routine including the exact amount I could manage to squeeze into carry-on only so I could walk straight out at the destination. Despite that, it took me 16 hours door-to-door for an 11 hour flight. So even with a plane trip that long, about 1/3 of the total travel time was on the ground. Of course that depends on your distance to the airport, but there train stations very often have a solid advantage. E.g. going from where I live in London to anywhere I'd like to actually go to in Paris via the Eurostar is faster because the train terminals on both ends are more conveniently located. So the answer is "it depends" but unless you live much closer to the airport than the relevant train terminal it generally takes a quite long flight before air travel is faster. Even then, I will often prefer train if it is "only" a bit slower, because of perceived convenience and comfort (e.g. I'd easily pick one hour more on a train vs. 30 minutes shorter journey if the latter involves additional legs, such as getting off a plane and lugging my bags to a train or bus station to get in to town).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

elmarschraml 12y ago

Rails is faster for a rail trip duration of up to 4 hours (no security, no lines, no checkin, plus you arrive right in the city centre). Which, depending on the route, comes to somewhere between 200 and 450 miles of distance. As for me personally, I prefer to go by train even if it takes a little longer. Flying means most of the time spent is lost in queues and transit, whereas a train trip means a single long stretch of uninterrupted time, which is much more relaxing and/or productive. In terms of price, it's usually pretty much the same. If you book ahead and get a good deal, a flight might actually be cheaper. On the other hand, if you need to travel a popular route on short notice, a flight will be outrageously expensive, whereas a train ticket costs the same even if booked 5 minutes before departure.