4 ms·

"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again. ... Even some of those who knew of the Lille s

"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again. ... Even some of those who knew of the Lille stop were surprised to find they had to carry their luggage throughout" Who would want to do that? Not only that, the Marseille train leaves London at 07:19! Great for people in London, not so great if you live outside. Firstly, it might not be possible to get in that early, and secondly, mid-week, peak fares in to London are extortionate. I checked a fare in October (Fri-Fri, before half term): £178. Sat-Sat in October: £129. Flying: £110 return with Easyjet, including baggage. Or from Heathrow with BA: £114. At more reasonable times of day. It's a 2 hour flight.

seszett 11y ago
Your flight arrives at Marignane though, taxi to Marseille is around 40€ and half an hour. I don't know how long and expensive is the journey to London's airports.
- switch007 11y ago
  I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g: - Departure: how to arrive, time, expense. - Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense. - Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense. I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be going to the inner city, and in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city.
  - seszett 11y ago
    > in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow passengers, for a shuttle to come even though it had been supposed to show up 20 minutes after we started waiting. The driver then explained us that "you're in Marseille, that's normal!". And he was kinda right. The shuttle was also late for the return flight, actually, just not too late.
    - switch007 11y ago
      You pick 1am to refute my claim? Well, OK, YMMV... I probably generalised too much with 'Europe'.
      - seszett 11y ago
        Well, I don't have much experience with pre-1am shuttles, except the one for the return flight which left maybe just 30 minutes late. But when the 1:30 shuttle shows up at 3:00 and tells you that you should have expected it, I think it does tell something about the reliability and frequency of connections to the city. The other systems I have experience with are Paris' RER, which is... okay, I guess, Copenhague's metro which makes the journey really easy, and Budapest's public transit which takes 1 hour and several changes. Copenhague is the only one I would consider reliable.
bnegreve 11y ago
When I have to choose between a 2 hour flight and a 4 hours train ride, I choose the train. I hate airport security and I find it impossible to do anything in a plane. I agree that flying is generally cheaper though.
- switch007 11y ago
  It's rarely a choice on that scale in/between England/Scotland, though. London-Scotland is ~4-5 hours on the train, or a 1h-1h15m flight. EDIT: London-Manchester is probably a good example of a good and popular train journey. While other domestic flights over the years have lost out to rail, London-Scotland by plane has remained popular. London-Paris is better, at 50 min flight vs 2 hour train. By the way, I'm not arguing /against/ trains. I love trains and flying is such a hassle these days.
  - david-given 11y ago
    Scotland's big and slow. London to Edinburgh or Glasgow is ~4-5 hours, but London to Inverness is ~8-10, which is way too long. That said, my favourite way to get to Inverness by train (I have family up there) is by sleeper train. It leaves London city centre at a civilised 2000, gets there at 0730, you can get your own cabin and the restaurant car serves a killer haggis. Plus people actually like being on it and like talking to you, and I've never met anyone on it who was dull. ...the sleeper train has to go specially slowly so as to give you a proper night's sleep.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - willyt 11y ago
    I don't think the difference is as big as you think it is e.g Central London to Central Glasgow. Tube 30mins -> Euston 4h15m -> Glasgow Central -> 10m cab ride = 4h55m Tube 30mins -> Liverpool St 45m -> Stanstead 1h -> Fly 1hr -> security/reclaim 30mins -> 20min cab ride =4h05m But on the train you get 4 hrs uninterrupted work time and first class is often only £10-20 extra and gets you unlimited free food, booze and wifi. Way better value than a BA flight
dharma1 11y ago
I did London -> Geneva eurostar over xmas hols. The change in Lille is shit. Broke my ankle rushing to the next train with all the luggage.
Brakenshire 11y ago
It's only one train a day, so it doesn't need to fulfil that much of a market (i.e. it's enough to cover just the people who are in central London and able to get there by 7.00). Also, it stops at Lyons and Avignon on the way, Marseille is an addition to the service, not the main purpose: > In fact, a few days ago, getting the train to the UK, only a few passengers boarded at Marseille. But the Eurostar filled up nicely at Avignon and Lyon where it stops as it heads north. Good point about the change, though. That really renders the headline untrue. It's not a direct service.
- Rexxar 11y ago
  I think direct here means "without changing train" not "without any stops".
  - salvadors 11y ago
    Having to get off the train for 75 minutes, with all your luggage etc., is effectively "changing train" to most people, even if you end up getting back on the same train.

seszett 11y ago

Your flight arrives at Marignane though, taxi to Marseille is around 40€ and half an hour. I don't know how long and expensive is the journey to London's airports.

switch007 11y ago
I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g: - Departure: how to arrive, time, expense. - Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense. - Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense. I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be going to the inner city, and in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city.
- seszett 11y ago
  > in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow passengers, for a shuttle to come even though it had been supposed to show up 20 minutes after we started waiting. The driver then explained us that "you're in Marseille, that's normal!". And he was kinda right. The shuttle was also late for the return flight, actually, just not too late.
  - switch007 11y ago
    You pick 1am to refute my claim? Well, OK, YMMV... I probably generalised too much with 'Europe'.
    - seszett 11y ago
      Well, I don't have much experience with pre-1am shuttles, except the one for the return flight which left maybe just 30 minutes late. But when the 1:30 shuttle shows up at 3:00 and tells you that you should have expected it, I think it does tell something about the reliability and frequency of connections to the city. The other systems I have experience with are Paris' RER, which is... okay, I guess, Copenhague's metro which makes the journey really easy, and Budapest's public transit which takes 1 hour and several changes. Copenhague is the only one I would consider reliable.

bnegreve 11y ago

When I have to choose between a 2 hour flight and a 4 hours train ride, I choose the train. I hate airport security and I find it impossible to do anything in a plane. I agree that flying is generally cheaper though.

switch007 11y ago
It's rarely a choice on that scale in/between England/Scotland, though. London-Scotland is ~4-5 hours on the train, or a 1h-1h15m flight. EDIT: London-Manchester is probably a good example of a good and popular train journey. While other domestic flights over the years have lost out to rail, London-Scotland by plane has remained popular. London-Paris is better, at 50 min flight vs 2 hour train. By the way, I'm not arguing /against/ trains. I love trains and flying is such a hassle these days.
- david-given 11y ago
  Scotland's big and slow. London to Edinburgh or Glasgow is ~4-5 hours, but London to Inverness is ~8-10, which is way too long. That said, my favourite way to get to Inverness by train (I have family up there) is by sleeper train. It leaves London city centre at a civilised 2000, gets there at 0730, you can get your own cabin and the restaurant car serves a killer haggis. Plus people actually like being on it and like talking to you, and I've never met anyone on it who was dull. ...the sleeper train has to go specially slowly so as to give you a proper night's sleep.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- willyt 11y ago
  I don't think the difference is as big as you think it is e.g Central London to Central Glasgow. Tube 30mins -> Euston 4h15m -> Glasgow Central -> 10m cab ride = 4h55m Tube 30mins -> Liverpool St 45m -> Stanstead 1h -> Fly 1hr -> security/reclaim 30mins -> 20min cab ride =4h05m But on the train you get 4 hrs uninterrupted work time and first class is often only £10-20 extra and gets you unlimited free food, booze and wifi. Way better value than a BA flight

dharma1 11y ago

I did London -> Geneva eurostar over xmas hols. The change in Lille is shit. Broke my ankle rushing to the next train with all the luggage.

Brakenshire 11y ago

It's only one train a day, so it doesn't need to fulfil that much of a market (i.e. it's enough to cover just the people who are in central London and able to get there by 7.00). Also, it stops at Lyons and Avignon on the way, Marseille is an addition to the service, not the main purpose: > In fact, a few days ago, getting the train to the UK, only a few passengers boarded at Marseille. But the Eurostar filled up nicely at Avignon and Lyon where it stops as it heads north. Good point about the change, though. That really renders the headline untrue. It's not a direct service.

Rexxar 11y ago
I think direct here means "without changing train" not "without any stops".
- salvadors 11y ago
  Having to get off the train for 75 minutes, with all your luggage etc., is effectively "changing train" to most people, even if you end up getting back on the same train.