Trains vs Planes and Automobiles

On 2/29/2012 11:33 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
29.2.2012 17:02, Dave Smith kirjoitti:

Train travel is much better in Europe than in North America. We had a
great time travelling around Europe on a rail pass. We had lots of
options for destinations and departure times. I live close to a Canadian
rail line and it is a passenger corridor from the US to southern
Ontario, There are only three trains a day each way.

Population density in Ontario is a tiny fraction compared to most of
Europe. In rest of Canada even much lower. It is extremely expensive to
build and maintain rail road networks. There are lots good taxpayers in
Europe to do the job. North America is quite different in this respect.

I like train travelling in Europe myself. Very reasonable a mode of
transportation. Distances are bearable and connection are good.

I don't really understand the pricing of train transport in Britain. For
example, a fare of GBP 89.50 is quoted for London to Bristol with a
duration of about an hour and a half with an off-peak price of GBP
29.40. However, the fare from Glasgow to Oban with a duration of about 3
hours is given as GBP 9.40. The latter journey price seems to mirror
general inflation from the times when I used to make the trip regularly
but not the former.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

James Silverton writes:

On 2/29/2012 11:33 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
29.2.2012 17:02, Dave Smith kirjoitti:

Train travel is much better in Europe than in North America. We had a
great time travelling around Europe on a rail pass. We had lots of
options for destinations and departure times. I live close to a Canadian
rail line and it is a passenger corridor from the US to southern
Ontario, There are only three trains a day each way.

Population density in Ontario is a tiny fraction compared to most of
Europe. In rest of Canada even much lower. It is extremely expensive to
build and maintain rail road networks. There are lots good taxpayers in
Europe to do the job. North America is quite different in this respect.

I like train travelling in Europe myself. Very reasonable a mode of
transportation. Distances are bearable and connection are good.

I don't really understand the pricing of train transport in
Britain. For example, a fare of GBP 89.50 is quoted for London to
Bristol with a duration of about an hour and a half with an off-peak
price of GBP 29.40. However, the fare from Glasgow to Oban with a
duration of about 3 hours is given as GBP 9.40. The latter journey
price seems to mirror general inflation from the times when I used to
make the trip regularly but not the former.

It makes sense to pay somewhat more for a faster train traveling a
longer distance on a much more heavily traveled route.

Loco2 wrote:


So my follow up question would be what do you think needs to happen to
get more bums on train seats and for those who take the train (in
Europe, but also elsewhere) what kind of resources do you use to plan
your journey?

When i plan my own trip from scratch, it's in German-speaking territory an
my main resource is bahn.de. I use various other websites looking for
local info such as room reservations and local points of interest.



--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:24:01 -0500, James Silverton wrote:



I don't really understand the pricing of train transport in Britain.

That's because it's designed to punish people for not being rich enough
either to be able not to care or not to be able to afford a car.

--
"Hopefully the fair wind will resume, or this may well take all day."

Admiral Collingwood on being becalmed under the guns of six French ships-
of-the-line at Trafalgar

On 29/02/2012 11:33 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
29.2.2012 17:02, Dave Smith kirjoitti:

Train travel is much better in Europe than in North America. We had a
great time travelling around Europe on a rail pass. We had lots of
options for destinations and departure times. I live close to a Canadian
rail line and it is a passenger corridor from the US to southern
Ontario, There are only three trains a day each way.

Population density in Ontario is a tiny fraction compared to most of
Europe. In rest of Canada even much lower. It is extremely expensive to
build and maintain rail road networks. There are lots good taxpayers in
Europe to do the job. North America is quite different in this respect.

I like train travelling in Europe myself. Very reasonable a mode of
transportation. Distances are bearable and connection are good.

That's true.... when you consider the size of the province. The
population is mostly in the southern part of the province, the Golden
Horseshoe. It is mostly urban sprawl and is as densely populated as most
of western Europe. They could have a train system that is as efficient
as the European trains, but rail traffic has been such a bad choice for
so long that major changes would have to be made in order to get people
to adapt to rail transport.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:49:44 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:24:01 -0500, James Silverton wrote:



I don't really understand the pricing of train transport in Britain.

That's because it's designed to punish people for not being rich enough
either to be able not to care or not to be able to afford a car.

It's because unlike in the rest of Europe trains are not subsidised in
Britain.

There were, and I think still are, massive subsidies for commuter travel,
particularly in London. But fares are still high. And, on mainline trains,
fares bought well in advance can be very inexpensive. Today I purchased two
first class singles Newcastle to London in May for a total cost of £51.
Including free food and alcoholic drinks. Admittedly the price included a
discount for a Railcard but was still very cheap.

And I have travelled extensively by train in Switzerland and find that VERY
expensive. Even after buying concessionary cards.

--
JohnT

Martin wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:49:44 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:24:01 -0500, James Silverton wrote:



I don't really understand the pricing of train transport in Britain.

That's because it's designed to punish people for not being rich enough
either to be able not to care or not to be able to afford a car.

It's because unlike in the rest of Europe trains are not subsidised in
Britain.

Of course they are, but not as much. And I think the system allows for
higher costs. Capitalism is a wonderful thing.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"[Do you think the world learned anything from the first
world war?] No. They never learn." -Harry Patch (1898-2009)

In article ,
Loco2 wrote:

What are the things which affect people's decision to travel by plane or
train or car when going on holiday? I love trains, and avoid short-haul
flights in favour of the train. I'm curious why more people don't go by
train for trips around Europe? Is it mainly price or time are there
other reasons too?

Here's my answer to the original post:

I don't generally travel *around* Europe -- I fly *to* Europe from the
US, to a region. Once I'm there, my traveling within that region is
determined by convenience and what I/we want to see and do. If I'm in a
large city, I get around by public transportation and take day trips by
train. If I want to go to smaller places, I will rent a car. Most of
my trips lately do both -- stay in a big city for a while, then pick up
a rental car and spend time in and around smaller places where cars are
more convenient (for me).

In the US, when I'm in New York, I take trains to Boston and Washington
(and once to Montreal, just to try it). For longer trips (or trips
starting away from NY), it's usually less inconvenient to drive or fly.

I'm not sure what counts as a "short-haul" flight, but flying is enough
of a hassle that I would prefer most other modes if they didn't take too
much longer than the flight.

I won't repeat the NY - Montreal experiment -- travel time was about 12
hours instead of 4 or 5; even though the train trip is very scenic and
much cheaper than the flight, it was just too long. I flew back to NY.

--
Neal Plotkin

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Martin Theodor Ludwig wrote:

even if I'm not sure what you mean is no longer possible since Dec
2011 - are the motorail connections in Italy (stopped running last
December) finally abandoned?

I have no idea about motorail connections since it is a mode of
transport I will never consider personally. It looks it has never been
popular within Italy (the terminals at Milano PG and Milano SC are in
disuse). However I heard rumours that DB or other foreign operator is
going to run such a service to some place in Piedmont. But do not
consider such statement accurate in any sense.

About "no longer possible", it means that all DIRECT train connections
from major cities in northern Italy (Milan, Turin, Venice) towards the
south (both southern of Naples, Calabria and Sicily, and on the Adriatic
coast (Abruzzi, Molise, Puglia) no longer exist.

One has to take an high speed train to Rome and change in Rome (to go
south of Naples), or to Bologna and change there (for Adriatic).

Now, not to talk of the sacking of the former WL employees (some of them
are protesting on a tower at Milano Centrale since more than TWO
MONTHS), the above is making night train travel much less attractive for
anybody in major cities in northern Italy. For two reasons.

One is that with the present fare system each train is billed
separately, the concept of "connection" is gone. So what will happen if
one's train to Rome or Bologna is late, and one misses the sleeper ?

The other one is that stations late at evening are an unfriendly
environment, and a change (maybe with lot of luggage) between 23:00 and
01:00 is not very pleasant.

1.3.2012 1:28, Dave Smith kirjoitti:
On 29/02/2012 11:33 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
29.2.2012 17:02, Dave Smith kirjoitti:

Train travel is much better in Europe than in North America. We had a
great time travelling around Europe on a rail pass. We had lots of
options for destinations and departure times. I live close to a Canadian
rail line and it is a passenger corridor from the US to southern
Ontario, There are only three trains a day each way.

Population density in Ontario is a tiny fraction compared to most of
Europe. In rest of Canada even much lower. It is extremely expensive to
build and maintain rail road networks. There are lots good taxpayers in
Europe to do the job. North America is quite different in this respect.

I like train travelling in Europe myself. Very reasonable a mode of
transportation. Distances are bearable and connection are good.

That's true.... when you consider the size of the province. The
population is mostly in the southern part of the province, the Golden
Horseshoe. It is mostly urban sprawl and is as densely populated as most
of western Europe. They could have a train system that is as efficient
as the European trains, but rail traffic has been such a bad choice for
so long that major changes would have to be made in order to get people
to adapt to rail transport.

As someone else said earlier, most national (and international) rail
road networks in Europe are heavily subsidized. I am not sure whether
North American politicians are too eager to open the national wallet for
building and maintaining extensive (more or less nationwide) railway
network. I know that local systems are built in various areas in North
America.

Belgium and the Netherlands alone comprise a population of 27 million
and territorial size of 70.000 km2. Whereas Canada is more than 100
times bigger (most of it practically uninhabited where it is pointless
to build any sort of roads) with a population only some 20% more
sizeable. The population of EU is around 500 million. This huge
difference in the size of the treasury allocating money for rail road
infrastructure between Canada and Europe is very much an explanation for
vital differences between North America and Europe.

I am sure regional networks both in the USA and Canada can very well be
(perhaps have proved to be for a long time) success stories to carry
commuters from one place to another. For instance in densely populated
Eastern and North Eastern parts of the United States this might be true.