|
Don't Want to Offend - but.......
Hi All
My question has to do with what to expect on the Eurostar train that goes under the Channel from London to Calais. After reviewing several postings on this site, evidently it is inappropriate to use the word "Chunnel" for some reason. I just want to know that if one has not done it before, is it worth the effort, or should we just fly into Paris rather than London (from Texas). It sounds kinda cool, but comparied to some on this board, I'm certainly not very sophisticated, and my perspective may be limited. Thanks for your help. shrink |
Taking the Eurostar from London to Paris seemed like taking any other train to me, nothing very exciting about it, I wouldn't do it just for the experience.
It's a good way to get from London to Paris if you need to do that anyway. But don't go out of your way. |
If you want to take the Eurostar just to say you've done it, you get the train in London at Waterloo Station and it takes you into the center of Paris at Gare de Nord. It's a fun ride but depending on the class of servie, the time of day, and the day of the week, it can be on the expensive side. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there is a train that goes to Calais but not the Eurostar? But in the end, if Paris is the goal, there would be no reason to go to Calais unless you especially wanted to...renting a car, viewing the Normandy war sites etc. Also, if you aren't planning any time in London, then I would suggest just flying into Paris. I really liked taking Eurostar, and frankly wouldn't do anything else between London and Paris, but if I wasn't planning on spending time in London, I wouldn't fly into London with the sole purpose of taking the Eurostar to Paris. It's pretty cool, but not THAT cool.
|
Are you visiting London AND Paris? If so, the Eurostar is a wonderful way to travel between the two. But if you are really just going to Paris - it makes no sense to fly into London, travel all the way across the city, and then take the train to Paris.
(if you do, you will not have the feeling of being under the Channel - it is a high speed train that several miles before the coast goes gradually underground into a long tunnel and comes back up to the surface inland in France.) |
Just got back from London and Paris. It wasn't anything special, just like a nice train. It was convenient taking you from downtown London to downtown Paris. It did cost almost 190.00 round trip per person.
|
For train geeks, it's a fun thing to do (even though there is no sense of being in the tunnel). If you want to do it just to do it, there is an overnight round trip fare on weekends called the "night trip" that sells for $58. The restrictions listed at eurostar.com are:
<b>Availbable from 4pm until 10.30am the following day. Maximum stay - 1 night. Available Saturday and Sunday only.</b> So you could fly into Paris, immediately go to London and spend the night, then come back to Paris the following morning. |
I agree, if you're not actually staying in London, it's not worth landing in London just to take the train to Paris. Much better to just fly into Paris.
|
Hi
If your destination is Paris, but air tickets to London are a better price, it may make sense. Generally in Europe it is cheaper to take the low cost airlines than the train. Peter www.the-languedoc-page.com |
<i>...if one has not done it before, is it worth the effort...</i> - ABSOLUTELY!
You could fly into London, ride a sightseeing bus around for a few hours, then take the evening train to Paris. You'll be jet-lagged, but even so I think seeing London even superficially is better than not seeing it at all. It will be a looooong day, but I think you'd be glad you did it. If you have more luggage than you can comfortably schlep around, take it to Waterloo station (where the Eurostar departs) and check it before you head out. Other threads in this forum deal with getting in to London from the airports. Taxi is expensive and hassle-free; Tube is cheap, fast, and spartan. Either buy a commercial bus tour such as <b>theoriginaltour.com</b> (pricey) or do it yourself with this: http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34535187 If you choose the Tube to get to town and the DiY tour, buy either a Day Travelcard or a Family Travelcard at the station at Heathrow. These will both get you unlimited travel on both the Tube and buses. There are many Eurostar fares - sometimes buying a round-trip and abandoning the return coupon is cheapest. <b>eurostar.com</b> |
I don't think we have enough information to answer this question. in general, i would say "no" it's not worth it.
do you save time/money flying into london from TX? how much time do you have? will you do it both ways? will you spend time in london? unless you have unlimited time, i would maximise my time and money in paris rather than travelling from heathrow or gatwick to waterloo, waiting, staring at a black window on the train (views other than the tunnel are not very inspiring). as for the term "chunnel", it's not inappropriate. the term is just not used in europe as it is outside of europe. if you say chunnel perhaps most people would know what you are talking about but it will sound very strange to europeans. |
Shrink, the Eurostar is an experience.
OK, it is just a train and I have made the journey several times, but to speed along at 300mph-fantastic passing the cars on the freeway right beside you! In the early years it was not as expensive to travel 1st/Premier Class and if you had lunch on board it was served on dinner plates, white starched napkins, one course at a time! Not now though but I stand to be corrected if it has changed. My travelling companions meeting me in Paris have just got a super deal with a return fare to London for R500 ( please work that out in your own currency)R stands for South African Rands. The only stipulation was they can only travel weekdays not incl. Friday. You must do in style if you can!! |
I'm a train person and did it once. It was a ride like any other ride, except you can't see anything while you are in the tunnel. I thought I might see us going down into the tunnel, but no. We could have been in a mountain.
I don't think it's worth the effort unless you are into trains, want to avoid the airport, are afraid to fly, or need a 3 hour rest. |
Shrink - the ride through the actual tunnel only takes 20 minutes, the rest is speeding through French farmlands.
The journey out of Waterloo to the entrance of the tunnel is much slower than the speed the train reaches when in France. |
Chunnel Chunnel Chunnel....so there who says it can not be called the chunnel????????
|
ah, who said you can't call it the chunnel? go right ahead.
it doesn't go 300 mph. far from it. |
Hi, Shrink. I, too, am from Texas and we are going to Europe in June and going to take the Eurostar just because we don't have trains in our area and it is intriquing to us. We are taking it back from Brussels to London.
Have a great trip and let us know about Paris. We aren't going there except maybe a day trip. |
Think of calling it "Chunnel" as analagous to calling SF "Frisco"
As to savoring the experience - well, it's not all that big a deal unless you are a true aficiando. The 20 minute or so tunnel portion is like having an MRI in a train car but you get to move around. If your destination is Paris and you can book to there for a reasonable cost, I'd do just that. If you can save major bucks flying into London and using Eurostar it may be worth considering - did this once, but only because it saved a load on airfare. If you do decide to turn this into a two city trip, the major advantage of the train is that you depart and arrive center city, avoiding the time, hassle and expense of getting to/from the airport. |
>> <i>Think of calling it "Chunnel" as analagous to calling SF "Frisco."</i>
You really should contact the editors at BBC News with that revelation. A quick search of BBC.com news stories just showed 57 examples of "<i>chunnel</i>" being used in articles to describe that channel crossing tunnel. |
"the major advantage of the train is that you depart and arrive center city, avoiding the time, hassle and expense of getting to/from the airport."
Normally this is definitely true. But in this case it is a LOT more hassle since there is no easy or convenient way to get from LHR to Waterloo International. Shrink's post sounds like they are going to Paris and are only considering London if they decide to take the Eurostar. (You can call it whatever you want - just like the "Frisco" example, everyone will know what you are talking about. But also just like "Frisco", it is pretty tacky.) |
<i> "Channel Tunnel, popularly called the “Chunnel,” a three-tunnel railroad connection running under the English Channel, connecting Folkestone, England, and Calais, France.
The tunnels are 31 mi (50 km) long. There are two rail tunnels, each 25 ft (7.6 m) in diameter, and a central tunnel, 16 ft (4.8 m) in diameter, that is used for maintenance and ventilation. The depth of the tunnels below the seabed averages about 150 ft (45 m). The project is a joint English and French venture, with a 55-year concession granted to Eurotunnel, a private company, and is the centerpiece of a high-speed rail link between London and Paris. The project began with the signing of the Channel Tunnel Treaty between France and Britain in 1986; passenger service began in 1994."</i> They call it the Chunnel on the Euro rail site also.. We took the Eurostar years ago, from London where we were staying for 2 weeks, to Paris where we stayed for a weekend. It was perfect for that sort of trip, but I would not fly into London, just to experience the train to Paris. It makes the trip too long. But if you want to take a quick trip from one place to the other, it is great! It left from London going as slow as any train, past small hamlets and meadows with sheep..then it got a little boring. Then the Tunnel which made me nervous :) but was over quickly then we sped up to the speed that the tracks are built for on the French side ( or at least that is the way it was a few years ago.) It was also a treat to go to Waterloo and to come out at the Gare du Nord, both wonderful train stations. Good luck and I hope you do it, it is fun :) |
This would probably be more appropriate to the U.S. forum, but here goes:
The Saint Louis and San Francisco Railroad has been called the "Frisco Road" since the mid 19th century. Regardless of what the effete snobs at its western terminus choose to nickname their city, it has for over 150 years and forever shall be "Frisco." |
"Frisco" was always just a nick-name for the St Louis and San Francisco -- and that line was never profitable and went out of business several times and doesn't exist anymore -- just like "Frisco".
|
Calling it the "chunnel" is tacky?? Give me a break. Outdated, sure. Kind of like calling the internet the World Wide Web.
There's at least one regular poster here who insists that "chunnel" is some sort of low brow americanism. Ignore the rant. Anyone who ever had to rely on a hovercraft or a ferry to travel between the England and France welcomed the Channel Tunnel. Ditto for cheapie flights between London and Paris. From my point of view, it's a train ride. Unless you're a train afficionado, go with whichever option offers the lower fare. |
Calling the internet the world wide web isn't outdated - it's factually incorrect.
The internet is a network of server computers accessible to client computers. Some of them are mail servers, some of them are file servers, and some of them are hypertext servers. The latter make up the world wide web. |
The point is, I can't believe that a flight to London, transportation from Heathrow to Waterloo, and the cost of the Eurostar from London to Paris would be less expensive than a direct flight to Paris. Shrink asked if it would be worth the effort, so he was only considering it if the train ride was something really spectacular, not to be missed. I just don't think that is the case. And it's inconvenient to have to move all your luggage airport-train station-Paris when you could fly there direct. Just my opinion.
|
On the other hand, you can get to Paris Gare du Nord from several train stations. There's the RER (regional express) at CDG, of course - but there's also London Waterloo. In either case, you get off a plane and onto a train.
The only difference in luggage-schlepping is that hour or so from Heathrow to Waterloo - which provides the delightful additional benefit of an abbreviated tour of London. But zipping through France at 186mph is a rush (sorry). |
Chunnel? So much fuss over a name.
To clear up - calling it the "chunnel" isn't tacky at all, it's just not commonly used any more. It was used heavily whilst the tunnel was being constructed, but it refers to the tunnel ONLY, not the intercity train service, which is the Eurostar. So, people will refer to the Eurostar when they're talking about taking the train, because the Chunnel is just a tunnel, NOT a train. The eurostar isn't the only way of getting through the tunnel - you can also catch a car-train that's called the eurotunnel, so calling it the chunnel just isn't clear enough how you plan to get through! |
all snobbery aside, the fact is that in europe it is not called the chunnel.
i'm not saying that you should not use the term but just refuting those who try to offer evidence otherwise. i suspect that the eurostar site referenced is the US site, not the european one. Likewise, i suspect the BBC stories referenced are old. Either way, say "chunnel" in the US and everyone will know what you are talking about. use the term in europe and people will think it's a little strange. call it what you want but please don't try to convince us in europe that it is commonly used over here, because it is not. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 AM. |