SUMMAGOLD

What would you do? Fly or take train from London to Amsterdam? Easyjet is posting some real low prices. But wary of airport security delay during the New Year weekend. Also the risk of missing some great sights while on the train...

Robespierre

I gotcher real low prices right here: www.dutchflyer.com

SUMMAGOLD

robespierre thanks for the recommendation, but we dont have 8 hours to spare just getting to london taking the train and ferry. how many hours taking the fast train? Is there a fast train??

Cathinjoetown

I would fly--there's not really a fast train/ferry that I know of. Check low-cost flights to Southampton--trains connect at SH airport to London--I think about 90 minutes into Waterloo Station. Be sure to check holiday schedules on the trains up to London. Of course, I think you can get low cost flights probably closer in--Gatwick perhaps.

hetismij

Fly. There is no fast train link - you would either have to train-ferry-train via Hook of Holland or go to Brussels and get the Eurostar. Both would take a lot longer than flying. Security will be the same no matter when you fly and is done at the gate at Schiphol so you are only in a queue with your fellow passengers.
Cheapo airlines like Easyjet leave from a separate gate area to the main airlines, and it is quite a hike so allow lots of time to get to the gate if flying with them. Also be aware that Easyjet's timekeeping at Schiphol often leaves a lot to be desired.
With Easyjet you also have to get into London from luton of course.
Flying over London into LHR is wonderful if the skies are clear.

Robespierre

You asked what I would do. Having added up the cost in time, money, and frustration, I'd take the train/ferry/train. To me, sitting on deck with a tall cool one is infinitely preferable to standing in a queue waiting for the next act.

When you make your comparisons, don't forget to factor in the time and expense of getting between cities and airports.

greg

There is not much to see on the train between Brussels and London on a Eurostar.

This is usually the case for high-speed trains. They need to lay the tracks over open, flat land or bury them below the ground level. These restrictions translate to boring landscapes.

hetismij

Robes, I think the chances of sitting on deck on a North Sea ferry would be prefererable most of the year, but not in mid winter. With no chance of going outside without either being frozen to death or blown away the idea of spending hours on a ferry depresses me beyond belief. It takes over 6 hours just on the boat, and unless you take the night ferry, in which case you must book a bed, it would be not only far far slower than flying but also far far more boring.

travelgourmet

FLY. FLY. FLY.

I admit that I have never understood the bias on this board toward trains and ferries, but suggesting a 7-hour train/ferry connection is a bit extreme. The flight is a quick hop and no reasonable amount of "hassles" (which I find pretty rare) will seriously diminish the time advantage.

AMS is probably the best airport in Europe and will be a painless experience. Fly VLM and you will land at London City airport, which is almost as painless. This is a no-brainer.

FLY. FLY. FLY.

janisj

Absolutely - fly. No other option is even close to practical in January. The train - ferry - train plan would be pure Hell. My guess is those recommending it have not seen the North Sea in dead of winter.

flanneruk

Why would there be "airport security delay during the New Year weekend."? And why is this any more likely than identical delays at Eurostar security?

GeoffHamer

The route via Harwich and Hoek van Holland is a very good way of travelling overnight. They are big ships with good cabins, and I've used the service in summer and winter. You leave London at 2030, so get a whole day in London, a night's sleep on the ship and get to Holland in the morning. The trains connect at both ports. The daytime service should be avoided as it would be very tedious.

PatrickLondon

A lot depends on where in London you might be starting from. If it takes a couple of hours to get to your London airport, but ten minutes to St Pancras, that might well compensate for the shorter journey time.

Robespierre

<i>My guess is those recommending it have not seen the North Sea in dead of winter.</i>

You guess wrong. I have SCUBAed off St Andrews in December. The fast cats are so huge (Stena <i>Discovery</i> is the width of a football field), unsettled seas aren't a factor.

If the journey is as much of an objective as the destination (as implied by &quot;missing some great sights&quot; in the OP), train/ferry is the clear winner - at least in daylight. The overnight trip costs almost nothing in sightseeing time, because you leave London late in the evening and arrive in Holland in time for breakfast, although admittedly you don't get to see much of England that time of year.

I wonder how many people dissing the Harwich-Hoek ferry have actually ridden it.

GeoffHamer

The catamaran STENA DISCOVERY finished nearly two years ago.
There are two ships on the Harwich-Hoek route - huge ships, 690 ft long and over 40,000 tons. They have very good overnight accommodation, but little to make a daytime trip interesting.

optimystic

My colleague and I often have to travel to Amsterdam. He takes the train (Eurostar to Brussels, then I am not sure which route from there), I fly. There is not much in it terms of time, once you take into account getting to the airport. I think the train journey is about 6 hours. But he doesn't like flying and lives close to St. Pancras. On the other hand, I live closer to Heathrow and don't mind airports.

Jay_G

Having recently made the journey to and from London and Amsterdam - flight out, train back (don't you just love business trips?) my vote would be for the plane.

Whilst the train trip back from Amsterdam was painless - Thalys to Paris Gare du Nord then Eurostar on to London (with a quick meeting and great lunch in the middle) - it felt very long compared to flight out.

The Thalys Amsterdam-Paris took in the region of four and a half hours, followed by another 2 and three-quarters into London on the Eurostar.

The flight on the other hand spends one hour 20 minutes in the air, but arriving one hour before departure time and using BA's self-service booking in terminals, the total time taken was two hours thirty.

Even with the whole shoe removal, unpacking of laptop nonsense, it shaves off so much time as to make it a very easy decision in my opinion.

If you had more time, I'd say take the train, but as time appears to be of the essence for you, the plane wins hands down.

alanRow

&lt;&lt;&lt; The Thalys Amsterdam-Paris took in the region of four and a half hours, followed by another 2 and three-quarters into London on the Eurostar. &gt;&gt;&gt;

Odd route, most people would have taken the Thalys from Amsterdam to Brussels then Eurostar to London

alanRow

Amsterdam to Brussels BTW is about 90 minutes

Robespierre

<i>Thalys to Paris Gare du Nord then Eurostar on to London...felt very long compared to flight out.</i>

It well might - since you went about 600km out of your way. The route I would use is: Thalys to Brussels, Eurostar to London.

I'd still prefer relaxing to standing in one queue (check-in, security, boarding) or another.