Trains vs Planes and Automobiles

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 21:34:45 +0000 (UTC), Erilar
wrote:


What's "enjoyable" is a matter of taste. Driving a car in heavy traffic in
hot weather to go someplace jammed with tourists strikes me as the
diametric opposite of "enjoyable"! Personally, I not only prefer trains in
Europe, i visit it in late April/early May to avoid the mad crush.



We're all different, of course, but I'm with you almost entirely on
that issue. With rare exceptions, I visit Europe only in very early
Spring or late Fall. March and November are common months for me. For
example, I'm going to Rome this coming November.

And sometimes I've gone to Italy in December/January.




--
Ken Blake

Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 21:34:45 +0000 (UTC), Erilar
wrote:


What's "enjoyable" is a matter of taste. Driving a car in heavy traffic in
hot weather to go someplace jammed with tourists strikes me as the
diametric opposite of "enjoyable"! Personally, I not only prefer trains in
Europe, i visit it in late April/early May to avoid the mad crush.



We're all different, of course, but I'm with you almost entirely on
that issue. With rare exceptions, I visit Europe only in very early
Spring or late Fall. March and November are common months for me. For
example, I'm going to Rome this coming November.

And sometimes I've gone to Italy in December/January.

When I first retired, I traveled in September/October, which is a lovely
time to do so, but it's also a particularly lovely time at home, whike
spring is much less so, so I changed my yearly trip to spring.




--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

Tom P wrote:
On 03/03/2012 10:34 PM, Erilar wrote:
Tom wrote:
On 03/03/2012 09:58 AM, bill wrote:

(I may have clipped too many attributions)


Summary - most people do not go by train for trips round Europe because
they would rather spend their vacation time in a more enjoyable fashion.

That conclusion is most certainly not supported by your evidence.



You think so. Please elaborate.

What's "enjoyable" is a matter of taste. Driving a car in heavy traffic in
hot weather to go someplace jammed with tourists strikes me as the
diametric opposite of "enjoyable"! Personally, I not only prefer trains in
Europe, i visit it in late April/early May to avoid the mad crush.


That might be so in your case, but numbers speak for themselves - the
majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train. You might also
consider that not everyone can pick and choose when they go on vacation.
Families have children that are legally obliged to attend school and can
only travel during school breaks. Quite apart from which, how many kids
would enjoy the prospect of traveling round from one city to another by
train when they could be on the beach?

How about children who have never been to Europe before? Not everyone
lives there. And traveling by train can be an adventure for children on
their first foreign trip who have always traveled by car. My daughter and I
spent a month in Germany with her children who were then 10 and 14, staying
primarily in family rooms in youth hostels, not lying around on beaches,
which they could do at home.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

4.3.2012 0:07, Tom P kirjoitti:
On 03/03/2012 10:34 PM, Erilar wrote:
Tom wrote:
On 03/03/2012 09:58 AM, bill wrote:

(I may have clipped too many attributions)


Summary - most people do not go by train for trips round Europe
because
they would rather spend their vacation time in a more enjoyable
fashion.

That conclusion is most certainly not supported by your evidence.



You think so. Please elaborate.

What's "enjoyable" is a matter of taste. Driving a car in heavy
traffic in
hot weather to go someplace jammed with tourists strikes me as the
diametric opposite of "enjoyable"! Personally, I not only prefer
trains in
Europe, i visit it in late April/early May to avoid the mad crush.


That might be so in your case, but numbers speak for themselves - the
majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train. You might also
consider that not everyone can pick and choose when they go on vacation.
Families have children that are legally obliged to attend school and can
only travel during school breaks. Quite apart from which, how many kids
would enjoy the prospect of traveling round from one city to another by
train when they could be on the beach?

For instance I tend to have a summer holiday lasting five weeks. Surely
I don't want to spend too much of my precious time on beaches. When I
visit a beach under the burning sunshine, I seek a seat in shade, have a
cup of coffee and read a daily and then leave the beach.

A car is most flexible in many cases. Often the only means to achieve a
destination smoothly and without wasting time unnecessarily. Motorists
can also save some money when they seek accommodation in countryside as
a bonus they get a peaceful and *quiet* place to rest their worn down
bones (no, I am not talking about camping sites which are for masochists
only).

We Europeans can visit other parts of the continent by our own cars. I
have done this several times. You can leave home when you want (in the
frame of your leisure time, of course) and you can return home just as
you want. As a Finn I better reserve a ticket for the car for ferry
rides between Finland and Sweden/Germany). That's about all for
necessary planning. Insurance fully works as it does at home (excess is
slightly higher outside the Nordic countries). You can also carry
material (mostly unnecessarily) much more than in the case you carry a
rucksack and get a sore back.

However, it isn't a superior way to explore Europe. Only one way. The
same applies to buses, trains and aeroplanes. One can use all these
modes of transportation during a holiday.

For instance I could drive from Finland through Sweden and Denmark in
good pace and still have a peek on many interesting places en route.
After spending some time in Northern Germany I arrive in the Lederhosen
country and start sipping Bavarian weisbier. I develop this feeling that
for Germany this is it for some time now I have a week to loiter around
before I start a march back home. I leave the car in Munich and fly to
Madrid. I will make one day excursion from town to Toledo - by train I
think. After a few days of filling the belly by tapas I will once more
replace myself efficiently and quickly to Florence Tuscany. After the
expensive tickets to the world recognized museums and ridiculously
priced coffee on the banks of Arno I shall reluctantly return to Munich
and urge my pony to gallop in fury foam spilling out from his mouth.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:47:38 +0200, Markku Gr?nroos
wrote:


A car is most flexible in many cases. Often the only means to achieve a
destination smoothly and without wasting time unnecessarily.


That's certainly true in many cases, but in other cases, it can be a
big problem. Parking can be a problem. Traffic can be a problem.
Dealing with one-way streets can be a problem (I once drove a rental
car into Rome to return it; I got within two or three blocks of the
rental agency, but actually took another *hour* to figure out how to
navigate the one-way streets and get there).

In general driving in small towns can be much better than in big
cities.

And I also wanted to point another couple of reasons why driving in
Europe can be a big problem for Americans. These are my own
experiences:

1. Although I learned to drive on a stick shift, it's been years since
I owned a car with one. So my skills driving that way are poor. And
many younger Americans have never driven with a stick shift. It might
be possible to rent a car with an automatic transmission, but they are
harder to find, and usually *much* more expensive.

2. Driving in Europe can be a problem for Americans because we don't
know the differences in laws, we don't know the differences in driving
customs, and we can have trouble reading the traffic signs.

So I've done this occasionally (in Italy and in France), but I'm
always happiest when I don't have to and greatly prefer to take trains
or buses when they meet my needs.

--
Ken Blake

martin has found a new useless thread to hang on to.

"Martin" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
...

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 02:01:51 -0800 (PST), Surreyman
wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:49 pm, Tom P wrote:
On 02/28/2012 02:32 PM, 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?

First, there's some data here, albeit rather
dated:http://www.eds-destatis.de/en/downlo...f/np_02_15.pdf
The first thing to note is that the majority of vacation trips are
made within the country of residence. French and Spanish are most likely
to stay within their own country. Next thing to note is that
over half of all holiday travel is by private car - Spanish and French
over two thirds. It must be pretty obvious that if you have a car, then
you are likely to use it for travel in your own country rather than go
to the trouble and expense of using some other means.

Travel by air basically reflects the nature of the travel - one third of
Danish and UK residents fly to their destinations, compared with 10% of
the French and Spanish. Of the remaining forms of travel, rail only
amounts to a very small proportion - around 5% in most countries. Only
France has a proportion significantly over 10% of rail travel.

Also significant is the way the travel is organized. A high proportion
of Swedes, Danes and Germans travel with organized package holidays.

The vast majority of holiday travel takes place in summer.

Finally and perhaps most significant, the Mediterranean remains the most
popular destination for the majority of holidaymakers.

Summary - most people do not go by train for trips round Europe because
they would rather spend their vacation time in a more enjoyable fashion.

So holidaymakers wait for the good summer weather, and those most
nearby to the good beaches etc. don't therefore need planes & trains.
Deep stuff.

or fly to a warm sunny place.
--

Martin

On 02/03/2012 3:49 PM, Tom P wrote:


Travel by air basically reflects the nature of the travel - one third of
Danish and UK residents fly to their destinations, compared with 10% of
the French and Spanish. Of the remaining forms of travel, rail only
amounts to a very small proportion - around 5% in most countries. Only
France has a proportion significantly over 10% of rail travel.

Also significant is the way the travel is organized. A high proportion
of Swedes, Danes and Germans travel with organized package holidays.

The vast majority of holiday travel takes place in summer.

Finally and perhaps most significant, the Mediterranean remains the most
popular destination for the majority of holidaymakers.

Summary - most people do not go by train for trips round Europe because
they would rather spend their vacation time in a more enjoyable fashion.

I can't really agree with that. I would suggest that the Europeans who
are accustomed to train travel may stick to rail because that is what
they are used to. Air travel tends to be faster if you are going long
distances.Time back and forth to the airport and waiting time often adds
up to more time than the flight takes. If there are several people
travelling together it is usually cheaper to take a car than to pay
multiple fares.


North American tourists are not likely to consider train as a viable
mode of transport. Rail travel in Canada in the US is mediocre at best.
It services only a few corridor routes and at inconvenient hours.

They might also be concerned about language issues. Most Europeans tend
to my multilingual while North Americans tend to be speak only on
language and find it intimidating to have to deal in other languages.
They may nor realize that in this day and age it is not difficult to
find services in English.

Then there is the choice between spending time and money to get
somewhere and having the opportunity to enjoy that spot or to spend your
time waiting for transport, the time spent travelling, the extra cost of
that travel and travel to and from the station. Some people don't seem
to mind acting like what I think of as the Japanese tourist.... hop on a
bus, travel for hours, get out and take a picture, then back on the bus
and head to the next destination. You have to stick to a tight schedule
and you have to squeeze as many photo ops into the trip as possible, and
not time to actually enjoy them.

4.3.2012 20:19, Dave Smith kirjoitti:
On 02/03/2012 3:49 PM, Tom P wrote:


I can't really agree with that. I would suggest that the Europeans who
are accustomed to train travel may stick to rail because that is what
they are used to. Air travel tends to be faster if you are going long
distances.Time back and forth to the airport and waiting time often adds
up to more time than the flight takes. If there are several people
travelling together it is usually cheaper to take a car than to pay
multiple fares.

Many tourists like me are fundamentally vagabonds. There are not
necessarily so many primary destinations which are regarded much more
important over the others. We want to be on the road. It is one
essential dimension of travelling really. When we are travelling between
points A and B, there are also sites like C,D, E... in between the two
points which are also worth a visit. Tramps (in sense of tourism) tend
to spend more than two weeks to complete their journey. Some of us
return home after a few months or years. I cannot afford that and more
importantly after a month or so home sickness takes over.

On 04/03/2012 2:06 PM, Markku Grönroos wrote:

I can't really agree with that. I would suggest that the Europeans who
are accustomed to train travel may stick to rail because that is what
they are used to. Air travel tends to be faster if you are going long
distances.Time back and forth to the airport and waiting time often adds
up to more time than the flight takes. If there are several people
travelling together it is usually cheaper to take a car than to pay
multiple fares.

Many tourists like me are fundamentally vagabonds. There are not
necessarily so many primary destinations which are regarded much more
important over the others. We want to be on the road. It is one
essential dimension of travelling really. When we are travelling between
points A and B, there are also sites like C,D, E... in between the two
points which are also worth a visit. Tramps (in sense of tourism) tend
to spend more than two weeks to complete their journey. Some of us
return home after a few months or years. I cannot afford that and more
importantly after a month or so home sickness takes over.

I like to wander around too, and when I discuss vacations with people
they are often puzzled by my ability and comfort with travelling with
almost no itinerary. When I went on a trip to Europe with two of my
brothers and their wives about 10 years ago, one of them was calling
almost every night to tell us about a hotel he had found and he wanted
to book it. He wanted to know ahead of time where he would be sleeping
each night. We eventually decided on an itinerary of destination cities
only, and found hotels when we got there. The only exception was the
first couple of nights for Denmark, where it is often difficult to find
vacancies, and our last four nights in Paris.

When I went back with my wife two years later we again booked a hotel in
Copenhagen for a few days and one in Paris for the last few days. The
rest of the time we wandered aimlessly. For instance, we stopped to
visit Vimy Ridge in France, but it was cold and rainy, so we hopped in
the car and drove until we found the sun. That was in Verdun. We had a
great time, but I know lots of people who would never dream of doing that.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 14:29:35 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

On 04/03/2012 2:06 PM, Markku Grönroos wrote:

I can't really agree with that. I would suggest that the Europeans who
are accustomed to train travel may stick to rail because that is what
they are used to. Air travel tends to be faster if you are going long
distances.Time back and forth to the airport and waiting time often
adds up to more time than the flight takes. If there are several
people travelling together it is usually cheaper to take a car than to
pay multiple fares.

Many tourists like me are fundamentally vagabonds. There are not
necessarily so many primary destinations which are regarded much more
important over the others. We want to be on the road. It is one
essential dimension of travelling really. When we are travelling
between points A and B, there are also sites like C,D, E... in between
the two points which are also worth a visit. Tramps (in sense of
tourism) tend to spend more than two weeks to complete their journey.
Some of us return home after a few months or years. I cannot afford
that and more importantly after a month or so home sickness takes over.

I like to wander around too, and when I discuss vacations with people
they are often puzzled by my ability and comfort with travelling with
almost no itinerary. When I went on a trip to Europe with two of my
brothers and their wives about 10 years ago, one of them was calling
almost every night to tell us about a hotel he had found and he wanted
to book it. He wanted to know ahead of time where he would be sleeping
each night. We eventually decided on an itinerary of destination cities
only, and found hotels when we got there. The only exception was the
first couple of nights for Denmark, where it is often difficult to find
vacancies, and our last four nights in Paris.

When I went back with my wife two years later we again booked a hotel in
Copenhagen for a few days and one in Paris for the last few days. The
rest of the time we wandered aimlessly. For instance, we stopped to
visit Vimy Ridge in France, but it was cold and rainy, so we hopped in
the car and drove until we found the sun. That was in Verdun. We had a
great time, but I know lots of people who would never dream of doing
that.

How often did you end up sleeping in your car?

Or in 'The Cockroach Inn'...

I have spent a few nights sleeping on the benches in railway station
waiting rooms, but not since I was 30...

--
"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