Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Europe
Reload this Page >

For Those of You Who Scoff At Train Travel

For Those of You Who Scoff At Train Travel

Old Oct 25th, 2014, 03:07 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For Those of You Who Scoff At Train Travel

From time to time there are postings about traveling from one point in Europe to another by train. These posts always bring opinions from the naysayers to the enthusiasts of train travel. I am one of those who enjoys the "passing scene". Here is a link to an article in the travel section of the NY Times that speaks to a train experience.
http://nyti.ms/1tugLTM
opaldog is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 03:31 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've never read any post on here that from someone who "scoffed" at train travel nor say you shouldn't do it. There are just some people, like me, who think it depends on the cost and time of the journey as to what is most desirable, not just whether it is train or not.

It isn't true for air travel, but for train travel, there are some people who are biased towards it beyond just facts or weighing practical considerations (on Fodors).
Christina is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 03:36 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,880
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If you live near Zürich, it is easier to travel by plane to Paris, Rome, Salzburg and Munich than to take the train. Although the time on the train may be near 6 hours, the time saved flying is marginal.
kleeblatt is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 04:07 AM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have seen no scoffers on the Europe boards--people buy prems all the time for the TGV which is what this article is about.
Between London and Paris it is used--city center to city center. CDG to Provence? No brainer for getting you on your way easily and quickly.
As with any travel, it is what Christina says--time, cost, need--as to what fits.
the European train system is wonderful, and should always be in the mix for consideration.
Gretchen is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 04:17 AM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I think the *most* important consideration is the amount of carbon emissions. We know enough in this day to try to keep them down, so it seems folly to just drive around spewing emissions when unnecessary -- especially in some of the prettiest scenery on the planet.

It also seems to be a great idea to use the trains in order to enjoy a new experience. Much of the world doesn't have a great train system to use, so people are pretty much forced to use cars. However, since there is a great system in many countries in Europe, it adds an interesting layer of adventure to a European trip.

s
swandav2000 is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 04:22 AM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree that I have not seen any train scoffers on the europe board.

There are a lot on the US board - with very good reason - considering the dismal state of the Amtrak system in most of the US (service is scarce, trains fews, they are often late - very late as tracks are owned by freight companies, which take priority, and they usually cost more than planes).

In europe I would always reco train as opposed to plane for trips that are 6 hours or less (by train) - since plane is likely to take at least as long when considering the time getting to and fro airports as well as the large window to be allowed for security clearances - and traveling by plane is both more uncomfortable and more open to delays based on weather and other issues.
nytraveler is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 04:29 AM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 72,630
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes on 7 Posts
>>These posts always bring opinions from the naysayers to the enthusiasts of train travel.ever seen any naysayers. Now, IF you meant on the USA board - that is a whole different kettle of fish. But on Europe, uh uh.

But . . . there are certain 'enthusiasts' (You know who you are PQ ) who tend to think a trains are the only/always best way tot travel, who gets shouted down now and then. But even he has softened and does say sometimes flying is better.

but scoffing at train travel - not here.
janisj is online now  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 04:30 AM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There certainly are scoffers here. I, for example, never miss an opportunity to mock the near-lunatic belief among some that trains solve all problems. There are several regular contributors, for example, who recommend with a straight face travelling to Dublin from SE England by train/ferry. This may be useful therapy for people with a rage against efficient travel: but it's a complete disservice to the poor sods asking a straightforward question and expecting a sane answer.

And I really don't buy the nonsensical view that "the European train system is wonderful" (try, for example,the simple matter of commuting to work in Milan from suburbs less than 50 miles away. Or from much of the Paris banlieue) or that it "should always be in the mix for consideration."

For many, many European journeys, trains are the silly indulgences of people living in a country that's just too big for trains to fill any useful purpose - and too unrealistic to accept the self-evident fact that in their country's few corridors suitable for trains, real estate prices and availability make almost all proper line construction impossible. So myths about European trains get dreamt up.

For city-centre to city-centre journeys of up to 300 miles, on suitably equipped routes, trains will usually work better than the alternatives. For some commuting, with properly supported timetables and suitable infrastructure, ditto. For almost all other journeys, they won't.

And the environmental case for fast trains over planes only makes sense if you BOTH use nuclear energy for the power AND place no value on the landscape you destroy by building a great slab of metal across it.

Few railheads even accept how destructive new train lines mostly are. Unless your landscape is hideous in the first place
flanneruk is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 05:14 AM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 57,091
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Few railheads even accept how destructive new train lines mostly are. Unless your landscape is hideous in the first place>>

a special parliamentary committee is apparently going to be spending a whole year working through the 2000 objections to the new high speed rail line planned between London and Birmingham and beyond. Whole communities are going to be irreparably affected if it goes through, and blighted while it's being considered.

I have seen cost estimates ranging from £70-£100 billion, and it won't be built until 2026.

that's a hell of a lot of dosh just to go a bit faster between London and Manchester. Who wants to be able to get to the north of England THAT quickly?
annhig is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 05:18 AM
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, there are scoffers, and people who are over the top about train travel. Glad to see that this subject is of interest to people. I'm sure you already surmised that I enjoy the train when I can use it. It's not so great in the USA and not a lot of opportunities for me being in a rural area.
opaldog is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 05:41 AM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 19,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it was more the premise that was "of interest" than the subject.
vincenzo32951 is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 05:53 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've never (in my memory) read any thread where people scoffed at traveling by train. There are some new posters who don't understand how easy it is to travel by train in Europe and who can't think of any other transportation method than a car and want to drive from city to city.

Sometimes it's not practical to spend over 12 hours on a train and flying is a better option but that's not scoffing at train travel; it's finding a better way to get from one place to another.

I've traveled Paris to Provence both by car (once) and by train (several times) and would never do the trip by car again.
adrienne is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 06:58 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Besides the professional contrarian and employer of tautological descriptions, Flanny, I have never seen people scoff at trains. If any thing there is a prejudice towards trains here.
IMDonehere is offline  
Old Oct 25th, 2014, 07:30 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 8,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"If you live near Zürich, it is easier to travel by plane to Paris, Rome, Salzburg and Munich than to take the train. Although the time on the train may be near 6 hours, the time saved flying is marginal."

A bus ride from Zurich to Munich costs about 15 EUR and the journey (from city center to city center) is shorter than by plane for sure. About 12 bus departures every day.
neckervd is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Loco2
Europe
6
Jul 13th, 2012 07:34 AM
LUVNY
Europe
19
Oct 20th, 2011 05:57 PM
07021942
Europe
6
Jun 18th, 2009 01:23 PM
crimson
Europe
8
Mar 23rd, 2006 03:23 PM
sven
Europe
26
Dec 2nd, 2002 08:53 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -