Western europe - do you train it or fly it?

[Ianno87]

The problem I find is that, with only so much annual leave, as lovely as a lengthy train trip across Europe is, it's just too time-consuming most of the time. Amsterdam/Köln/Mid-France is probably my limit for doing both ways by rail.

A decent compromise however is to fly one way on a cheap flight, the other direction by train. Couple of examples:
-2014 Fly to Krakow (few days), then rail back via Warsaw and Berlin (couple of days in each)
-2016 Just Warsaw. Fly out, train back* for an extended weekend
-2017 Weekend in Hamburg - fly out early Saturday, train back Sunday

*Also returning with a newly bought pram for our then unborn son. The saving on the UK price wasn't very far off paying for the trip!

 

[duesselmartin]

this summer is a good example. Train Düsseldorf-Basel-Milano-Genova. Staying two weeks.
Flight Genova-Stanstead. Train on to Oxford. Return Oxford-London Eurostar to Brussel, train to Düsseldorf.
Genova to Oxford could be done by train in 15 hours but is a bit risky with 5 changes.

 

[Dougal2345]

Just to bring back the environmental arguments, it seems that many are making the choice of 'plane over train based on value/time/convenience.

Here's an analogy - you have to dispose of some old car tyres. Your choices are:
(1) Pay someone to take them away and recycle them
(2) Drive into the country and drop them into a ditch
(3) Burn them in your back garden

Obviously (1) costs money, (2) takes time, so (3) is clearly the one to choose. If you nip out while they're burning, you won't even be inconvenienced by the smoke.

 

[AY1975]

Where possible I take the train if it's a personal rather than a work trip, both for environmental reasons and because I find it less stressful (plus the fact that you see more). Obviously that isn't always an option, especially on a work trip if it's time-critical. I've just got back from a work trip to the Czech Republic, and am going to Switzerland for work early next month, so I am having to fly on both those occasions but at least this was my first flight for ten years and I haven't flown on a personal trip since 2005. At least for personal trips I can usually book them well in advance and get reasonably priced tickets.

Being based in Sheffield, and with my parents living in London, I can easily travel down to London and stay the night with them and then catch the Eurostar the next morning. Some of the trips that I've done in recent years going all the way by rail have included:

2006: London to Papiermühle, between Jena and Gera in eastern Germany, by Eurostar to Paris, the now withdrawn night train to Frankfurt, ICE to Weimar, then local train.

2009: London to Ede, Netherlands, using Eurostar to Brussels then Benelux IC.

2010: London to Stuttgart using Eurostar to Lille, TGV to Strasbourg, then local trains. One night in Stuttgart, then Stuttgart to Konstanz, returning from Konstanz via Karlsruhe, ICE to Brussels, then Eurostar.

2012: London to Niort, between Poitiers and La Rochelle, using Eurostar to Paris then TGV.

2013: London to Ede using the Harwich-Hook of Holland ferry.

2014: London to Auxerre, Burgundy, by Eurostar to Paris, then TER regional trains.

2016: London to Ede by Eurostar to Brussels and Benelux IC, then Arnhem to Zurich by the then soon to be withdrawn CityNightLine sleeper, Zurich to Konstanz, Konstanz to Radolfzell, Radolfzell to London via Basel, TGV to Paris and Eurostar.

2017: London to Prague using Eurostar to Paris, TGV to Karlsruhe, ICE to Zurich (terminated at Basel due to late running, so took regional train to Zurich), Zurich to Prague sleeper, then Prague to Dresden, Dresden to Jena, Jena to Ede (NL) and Ede-Brussels-London by Benelux IC and Eurostar.

At the end of this month I'm going to Luxembourg for the Trier area steam specials ("Dampfspektakel"), going by Eurostar to Brussels then Belgian IC train.

As someone mentioned earlier on this thread, the www.seat61.com site is a useful source of reference. It tells you how to get to anywhere in Europe (and even some places outside Europe) without flying. In many cases you will find that it's easier and costs less than you think, especially if you factor in the time and cost of getting to and from airports (or parking at the airport if you drive there).

 

[AverageTD]

I went to Düsseldorf from London a couple of weeks ago and didn’t know which way to go. I ended up taking BA because I live near to Heathrow and it was more convenient. Before I went to Montpellier which doesn’t have a great amount of flights and they go from Gatwick. It was nice to take a train but high speed from Paris to Valence isn’t as fun as it seems. It was alright but I like flying and it was cheaper so it really depends on the distance and the route. Düsseldorf on Thalys would be more interesting but border control on they way back would be frustrating. Apparently Amsterdam to St Pancras adds on 45 mins at Bruxelles Midi because there is no immigration control at Amsterdam. It is a big problem for me when connecting to a Eurostar after another trip meaning you have to build in more time at Lille, Brussels or Paris

 

[duesselmartin]

I travel Düsseldorf to London regulary using either Thalys or ICE. I find security in B Midi less hastle than at an airport. Usually the full trip is less than 5 hours. Returning, waiting at St Pancras is usually longer with Paris passengers also in the queues.
Biggest annoyence here is the lack of seats at St. P during busy hours. The waiting area is too small That comfort issue needs to be addressed. Thalys security I only experienced once and can be described as fast and sloppy.

 

[apk55]

When Manchester airport is only 3 miles away (Manchester station 9 miles) it is a no brainer to fly. Only let down is the very poor local (no 18) bus service to the airport, but even so a taxi is cheap

 

[coppercapped]

We have family near Lübeck in northern Germany on the Baltic coast, so we are frequent (two or three times a year) travellers. We generally stay for a week or ten days each time. Over the years we have tried most ways of getting there, driving, flying and taking the train, now we are retired we mostly drive.

The very nicest way used to be to take the car ferry from Harwich to Hamburg. It's about a two and a half hour drive from home to the ferry terminal and the ship departed late afternoon/early evening. The following morning one could sit on the deck as the ship cruised up the Elbe and docked almost in the city centre around midday. From there it was a forty mile drive to our destination. Civilised and relaxed. The service was later cut back to Cuxhaven on the coast, which by being on the wrong side of the Elbe then made the drive some 3 hours long.

Our local airport is Heathrow so flying to Hamburg is simple, but the prices vary a lot and we still have to get from here to Heathrow and then from Hamburg airport to Lübeck. We've done it several time, but only in the context of short visits when we didn't have to cart so much luggage around. Ryanair used to fly from Stansted to Lübeck, but this meant a silly o'clock start and paying for car parking (or a hotel and car parking) as public transport from Reading couldn't get us to Stansted by 05.30 for an 06.30 flight. We have also taken XC to Birmingham and flown to Hamburg from there - that was at a time when the fares via Heathrow were extortionate - two return tickets Birmingham - Hamburg and the advance purchase returns to Birmingham were a bit more than a return for one person from Heathrow!

Train tickets for two people are expensive - and to do it in a day means a very early start and making at least four changes. It's also tiring.

So now we drive. Luggage in the car and we can reach Dover in 2 1/4 hours. DFDS to Dunkirk and up the coast. These days we stop twice, usually somewhere in Belgium (mostly Oostende, Brugge or Gent but sometimes in Antwerpen - depends on the time of the ship and the time of the year) and then again somewhere in Germany. We try to choose different places and see the local sites so the journey doesn't become boring.

Our conclusions are that mode changes in international travel are a pain in the proverbial - taxi to station to RailAir coach to plane to S-Bahn to train to taxi really take the edge off things. Changing trains in the same station is marginally better, but still a pain if one is trying to schlepp bags.

We also have the use of the car at the destination - and aren't dependent on relatives or having to take a taxi or hire a car to get around. (They live in a village which has about three buses a day to Lübeck and the last one back is for people working in the city, so it leaves around 18.00). The car means we can make purchases during our journey and not have to worry about size or weight (within limits, of course!).

Regarding the environmental issue. As soon as one moves - if one doesn't walk all the way, and living on an island one can't - there will be an environmental 'cost'. The railways carved through unspoilt countryside, specially built motor roads and airports likewise and their structures and surfaces required energy to produce, bring to the place they were needed, for installation and continual maintenance. Fares reflect the total cost of operation - including fuel - and on this basis modern aircraft are very fuel efficient on a seat-mile basis compared to other modes. My car on a trip like this does about 50 mpg so I need a bit more than a tankful for each direction. I am certainly not going to stop visiting close family because of some environmental 'concerns'.

 

[Bald Rick]

We have family near Lübeck in northern Germany on the Baltic coast, so we are frequent (two or three times a year) travellers. We generally stay for a week or ten days each time. Over the years we have tried most ways of getting there, driving, flying and taking the train, now we are retired we mostly drive.

The very nicest way used to be to take the car ferry from Harwich to Hamburg. It's about a two and a half hour drive from home to the ferry terminal and the ship departed late afternoon/early evening. The following morning one could sit on the deck as the ship cruised up the Elbe and docked almost in the city centre around midday. From there it was a forty mile drive to our destination. Civilised and relaxed. The service was later cut back to Cuxhaven on the coast, which by being on the wrong side of the Elbe then made the drive some 3 hours long.

Our local airport is Heathrow so flying to Hamburg is simple, but the prices vary a lot and we still have to get from here to Heathrow and then from Hamburg airport to Lübeck. We've done it several time, but only in the context of short visits when we didn't have to cart so much luggage around. Ryanair used to fly from Stansted to Lübeck, but this meant a silly o'clock start and paying for car parking (or a hotel and car parking) as public transport from Reading couldn't get us to Stansted by 05.30 for an 06.30 flight. We have also taken XC to Birmingham and flown to Hamburg from there - that was at a time when the fares via Heathrow were extortionate - two return tickets Birmingham - Hamburg and the advance purchase returns to Birmingham were a bit more than a return for one person from Heathrow!

Train tickets for two people are expensive - and to do it in a day means a very early start and making at least four changes. It's also tiring.

So now we drive. Luggage in the car and we can reach Dover in 2 1/4 hours. DFDS to Dunkirk and up the coast. These days we stop twice, usually somewhere in Belgium (mostly Oostende, Brugge or Gent but sometimes in Antwerpen - depends on the time of the ship and the time of the year) and then again somewhere in Germany. We try to choose different places and see the local sites so the journey doesn't become boring.

Our conclusions are that mode changes in international travel are a pain in the proverbial - taxi to station to RailAir coach to plane to S-Bahn to train to taxi really take the edge off things. Changing trains in the same station is marginally better, but still a pain if one is trying to schlepp bags.

We also have the use of the car at the destination - and aren't dependent on relatives or having to take a taxi or hire a car to get around. (They live in a village which has about three buses a day to Lübeck and the last one back is for people working in the city, so it leaves around 18.00). The car means we can make purchases during our journey and not have to worry about size or weight (within limits, of course!).

Regarding the environmental issue. As soon as one moves - if one doesn't walk all the way, and living on an island one can't - there will be an environmental 'cost'. The railways carved through unspoilt countryside, specially built motor roads and airports likewise and their structures and surfaces required energy to produce, bring to the place they were needed, for installation and continual maintenance. Fares reflect the total cost of operation - including fuel - and on this basis modern aircraft are very fuel efficient on a seat-mile basis compared to other modes. My car on a trip like this does about 50 mpg so I need a bit more than a tankful for each direction. I am certainly not going to stop visiting close family because of some environmental 'concerns'.

One of the best posts ever on this forum.

 

[Dougal2345]

Fares reflect the total cost of operation - including fuel - and on this basis modern aircraft are very fuel efficient on a seat-mile basis compared to other modes.

The point you seem to be making here (forgive me if I've misunderstood) is that because 'plane tickets are often cheaper than train tickets, this means that the 'planes are more fuel efficient.

This is completely wrong. All sorts of subsidies and taxes affect fares, and the fuel portion of any fare is probably very small. Budget airlines in particular receive huge subsidies from their destination cities so as to bring in tourists. Airline fuel is not taxed - a massively unfair advantage that 'planes have over trains and cars.

If you're trying to convince yourself (and others) that a 'plane ride will ever be less polluting than a train trip, I think the facts might have something to say about that.

I am certainly not going to stop visiting close family because of some environmental 'concerns'.

I like the quotes around 'concerns' - obviously that's all they are, not worth worrying about really. Everyone should put those pesky concerns aside and hop back on the 'plane.

 

[coppercapped]

The point you seem to be making here (forgive me if I've misunderstood) is that because 'plane tickets are often cheaper than train tickets, this means that the 'planes are more fuel efficient.

This is completely wrong. All sorts of subsidies and taxes affect fares, and the fuel portion of any fare is probably very small. Budget airlines in particular receive huge subsidies from their destination cities so as to bring in tourists. Airline fuel is not taxed - a massively unfair advantage that 'planes have over trains and cars.

If you're trying to convince yourself (and others) that a 'plane ride will ever be less polluting than a train trip, I think the facts might have something to say about that.

I like the quotes around 'concerns' - obviously that's all they are, not worth worrying about really. Everyone should put those pesky concerns aside and hop back on the 'plane.

Figures for aircraft and airline fuel consumption are publicly available. Ryanair is a low-cost airline serving mainly European destinations; it seats 189 people in its Boeing 737-800s. Using typical values for sector lengths, fuel consumption and seat occupancy it can be seen that the fuel consumption is marginally greater than 3 litres/100 km/seat - based on typical sector consumption of something over 5 tonnes and a typical sector being something over an hour. This figure will obviously vary depending on sector lengths, cruising altitude, load, winds and air temperature but will remain close to 3 litres/100 km/seat - it will be neither 1.5 litres/100 km/seat nor 6 litres/100 km/seat.

These are 'ball-park' figures but are not a million miles from the consumption of my car; 50 mpg on the run to Lübeck (without racing...!) is equivalent to 5.6 litres/100 km, say 6 litres/100 km - and with two people in the car the specific consumptions of a Boeing 737-800 and my Golf are about the same.

Ryanair is a 'low cost airline' - by definition that also suggests it is very careful to minimise fuel consumption in its operations. By doing that it remains low-cost...

Destination cities are much less likely to give overt or covert subsidies to the low cost carriers to use out-of-the-way airports than they used to. As I mentioned, Ryanair used to fly from Stansted to Lübeck and served Frankfurt-am-Main by using Hahn, nearly 60 miles away. For various reasons (the local authorities trying to save money, court decisions about unfair competition and so on) these subsidies/bribes are dying out. Ryanair now flies to the main airports at Hamburg and Frankfurt and is treated like any other airline - compared to the number of people using other airlines at both these places its services are a drop in the ocean so there is no reason whatsoever to offer any sweeteners.

If you can find any figures giving fuel consumption per seat/100 km (or equivalent) for trains operating on similar routes then I would be glad to see them. The term 'pollution' covers a multitude of factors - is it carbon dioxide emissions, nitrous oxides or particulates? It is clear that electric trains do not emit much in the way of carbon dioxide at the point of use, but the way that the electricity is generated does make a difference. France produces much of its electricity using nuclear fission, but the by-products cause difficulties in treatment and storage. To meet public concerns after the Fukushima disaster, Germany closed several of its nuclear plants prematurely with the result that its carbon dioxide emissions have increased due to the increased use of the low-calorific value brown coal dug out of surface mines between Aachen and Köln for the generation of electricity.

As I wrote earlier - as soon as one goes anywhere by a method other than walking there is an environmental cost involved. The issue is how to minimise this cost while not asking the population at large to wear hair shirts.

Do not misunderstand my argument. I am as fond of trains and train travel as anyone on this forum - I enjoy the sights, sounds, history and drama of them. But they are not, and cannot be, the answer to every type of journey and to proclaim their perceived environmental advantages without any analysis to support the argument is not helpful.

 

[Julia]

Tl;dr version - horses for courses.

Went to Amsterdam recently, sadly Eurostar wasn't an option on the right dates. Cost-wise, EasyJet's headline fare looks like a no-brainer, but add on £50 for a taxi from home to LTN (with ukippy conversation from the driver all the way) because the early takeoff was too risky to do by other means, £5.30 each way AMS - town (which is really convenient, though), then on the return £2.30 LTN - LAP bus, £6.30 LAP - BDM and £7 BDM - SNO by X5 bus, and it's eating a long way into the differential. Big luggage adds more, and god help you if you have something big that you don't trust to the hold.

Time-wise, the headline time is trivially better by air but if you need to travel east/west to LTN or STN then that adds an awkward leg compared to rail to London. And there's a *lot* of standing around in queues by air, which hurts a lot as my partner has joints problems and I have a bad back. Airbus A319s aren't exactly comfortable either, and it's not easy to get up and stretch on demand. The day we returned, LTN kept us all standing in a seat-less corridor for half an hour while they fixed a problem with the e-passport readers - with no information about what was going on. End to end, the plane would have still won but not by that much.

In retrospect, with the choice we'd have gone for the Eurostar for the green credentials and comfort.

 

[Intermodal]

(with ukippy conversation from the driver all the way)

I would pay double the £50 fare to avoid this travesty.