You mention going in the afternoon--I'm assuming that you mean <i>after</i> lunch and <i>before</i> supper. At that time, is a meal necessary or even desireable?---unless you have a specific program once you get to London and it would be more convenient to eat on the train. Even so, I wouldn't imagine the restaurant experience---even with the larger seat--to be worth an additional $80. I'd spend the extra money on a restaurant in London.

And if you are going with a group, seats in pairs (second class) may be more congenial than the single seating of 1st class. Also, if I understand your post correctly, the larger luggage compartment in 1st class wouldn't be that much of an incentive for you, either.

&quot;Also the diffrence between 1st and 2nd isn't comparable to the difference between 1st and economy on a plane.

That's true, nor is the difference in price, though.

I've used first class on Eurostar only once and only because second was full. The meal was an airline meal, and was completely wasted on some passengers (who perhaps had just eaten in Paris or had booked dinner in London) but would have been inadequate for someone who was really hungry. I'd much rather choose myself where I eat and what sort of meal I want. Second-class Eurostar passengers have to suffer a dreary bar with very slow service and the lowest standards imaginable: plastic cups of instant coffee, for example. The catering is much better on TGVs, ICEs or Italian Eurostar trains. I don't understand why Eurostar thinks the sort of people travelling to or from Paris are the sort of people who like instant coffee.