International train travel - a realistic option?

We are spending a week in Rome and thought it might be fun to
get there (from London) by train (Eurostar to Lille, TGV to Dijon,
sleeper to Rome).

We have been quoted between £300 and £400 per person return,
2nd class. EasyJet is about a third of the price and BA about
half. We'd be prepared to pay significantly more for the extra
interest and comfort of a train journey but an extra £200 per
person is just too much.

Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe?
Is it all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts?
Or would we be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather
than through rail booking agencies?

In article ,
(Al Grant) wrote:

We are spending a week in Rome and thought it might be fun to
get there (from London) by train (Eurostar to Lille, TGV to Dijon,
sleeper to Rome).

We have been quoted between £300 and £400 per person return,
2nd class.

This seems an awful lot to me. It's a while since I last costed it, but
allowing for some inflation I would have expected it to come in at a
little over £200.

(Al Grant) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...



Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe?
Is it all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts?
Or would we be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather
than through rail booking agencies?


I suspect that the harsh reality (un-admitted by train buffs) is that the
airlines can provide long distance service far faster, cheaper and at a
much better economic cost/benefit ratio.


The European econmic model is far different than the one in the US, with
European rail service coninuing to occupy a comfortable "Mid-range" niche
in Europe, while in the US, only a single "corridor" route actually
operates "profitably" (and that depends upon the creativity of one's
accounting perspective). "Commuter" rail service in some US markets is
cost-justified (with enormous subsidies). because the alternative is
enormous traffic jams and gridlock, while most US intercity service is in
reality a quaint reminder of a bygone era, and transcontinental service
little more than a "living museum".

I'm a dedicated driver (in a rare year putting less than 25,000 miles on my
car in the US), but in Europe would generally use the train for trips of up
to about 350 miles as much for convenience as any other factors. Trains in
Europe are suitably fast and simply easier of access and to board (and
service is frequent enough for most purposes, although some of the old
overnight runs of yesteryear are harder to find).

But given the current discount airline environment and viable compettiton
into most markets, price alone would the viable decision factor, even if
time didn't matter (and for most of us it does...)

TMO

Al Grant wrote:

Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe?
Is it all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts?
Or would we be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather
than through rail booking agencies?

It's been a while since I travelled to Italy by train. Prices are likely
to be higher than budget airlines, or indeed full service airlines
trying to compete with them. If you are trying to book from the USA, the
consensus on this group is to avoid the American offices of Rail Europe,
whose main function appears to be teh separation of unwary Yanks from
their dollars. Another thing to watch out for is routing. Last time I
travelled to Italy, I was going to a station on the Simplon route, but
it proved cheaper (by about £100!) to travel on the Mont Cenis route and
go north from Milan, because this route avoids high Swiss prices.

Alan Harrison

On 25 Sep 2003 06:45:33 -0700, (Al Grant)
wrote:

We are spending a week in Rome and thought it might be fun to
get there (from London) by train (Eurostar to Lille, TGV to Dijon,
sleeper to Rome).

We have been quoted between £300 and £400 per person return,
2nd class. EasyJet is about a third of the price and BA about
half. We'd be prepared to pay significantly more for the extra
interest and comfort of a train journey but an extra £200 per
person is just too much.

Who quoted you the fare?

The French railway site, http://www.sncf.com, indicates a one way
fare as low as EUR 35 from Paris to Rome by advanced online
booking, and normal fares of about EUR 114. I expect much of the
quoted cost is for the expensive Eurostar and for sleeping
accommondations.

Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe?
Is it all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts?
Or would we be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather
than through rail booking agencies?

Depends. did the quote come from the UK?

You might try doing your onw booking online.



************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Al Grant wrote:
We are spending a week in Rome and thought it might be fun to get there
(from London) by train (Eurostar to Lille, TGV to Dijon, sleeper to Rome).

We have been quoted between £300 and £400 per person return, 2nd class.
EasyJet is about a third of the price and BA about half. We'd be prepared
to pay significantly more for the extra interest and comfort of a train
journey but an extra £200 per person is just too much.

Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe? Is it
all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts? Or would we
be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather than through rail
booking agencies?

1. One advantage of trains is that you usually need less advance notice to
get a middling price. With EasyJet, most of the time you won't be able to
get that same attractive price a few days before the trip, but with the
train you often will (maybe even always, depending on the country).

2. Make sure you're not getting your rail prices from RailEurope or some
other markup artist in the USA - their prices can be much higher than
normal. Go to the national train line web site. Or even go through a travel
agency in that country.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Alan Thomas Harrison wrote:

It's been a while since I travelled to Italy by train. Prices are likely
to be higher than budget airlines, or indeed full service airlines
trying to compete with them. If you are trying to book from the USA, the
consensus on this group is to avoid the American offices of Rail Europe,
whose main function appears to be teh separation of unwary Yanks from
their dollars. Another thing to watch out for is routing. Last time I
travelled to Italy, I was going to a station on the Simplon route, but
it proved cheaper (by about £100!) to travel on the Mont Cenis route and
go north from Milan, because this route avoids high Swiss prices.

If you are travelling, say, Milano to Roma, that is about 600 km. done
in about 4 hours by the speediest ES trains. If you consider the time
needed to move to/from airports and the time spent in checking in, doing
the security check and collecting the baggage, even if the actual air
travel time is less than one hour, it may be turn out that train is
actually quicker than airplane or just a bit slower. There is a real
competition between air and ground transportation, so the fees are
comparable.

On the contrary, a trip such as London to Rome needs about 24 hours by
train and few hours (always including time spent in flight procedures)
by airplane. This time almost all people will choose air; so the
competition is between different airlines, but railways have little
incentive to look for ground passengers on such a route and offer good
deals. The route gets assembled by stretches on trains whose fare
structure is optimized toward mid-range travel. Every single leg may by
competitive (in time or price or both) with air travel, but the sum of
three legs is not.

--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail:

TMOliver wrote in message ...
(Al Grant) vented spleen or mostly mumbled...



Have we missed something? Who uses long-distance trains in Europe?
Is it all students on rail passes and Eurocrats on expense accounts?
Or would we be better off trying to obtain tickets directly rather
than through rail booking agencies?


I suspect that the harsh reality (un-admitted by train buffs) is that the
airlines can provide long distance service far faster, cheaper and at a
much better economic cost/benefit ratio.


For London - Rome, you're probably right. I have seen some discussion
around here that for slightly shorter trips, say London - Nice, the
trains have some advantages having to do with leaving from and
arriving in roughly "city centers". Total transit times are shorter,
(when accounting for early arrival requirements and baggage claim).
Throw in vastly less luggage searching and for some, within certian
economic ranges, the train is "worth it".



The European econmic model is far different than the one in the US, with
European rail service coninuing to occupy a comfortable "Mid-range" niche
in Europe, while in the US, only a single "corridor" route actually
operates "profitably" (and that depends upon the creativity of one's
accounting perspective). "Commuter" rail service in some US markets is
cost-justified (with enormous subsidies).

All forms of public transportation, including buses and autos, are
"subsidized". It can be difficult to sort out who is getting more.

because the alternative is
enormous traffic jams and gridlock, while most US intercity service is in
reality a quaint reminder of a bygone era, and transcontinental service
little more than a "living museum".

I'm a dedicated driver (in a rare year putting less than 25,000 miles on my
car in the US), but in Europe would generally use the train for trips of up
to about 350 miles as much for convenience as any other factors. Trains in
Europe are suitably fast and simply easier of access and to board (and
service is frequent enough for most purposes, although some of the old
overnight runs of yesteryear are harder to find).

And has a real "point to point" dependency. Easy to get from major
town to major town along feed lines in and out of those towns. But
if you're out in the "boonies", you will find yourself with precious
few choices. Airlines didn't invent "hub and spoke".


But given the current discount airline environment and viable compettiton
into most markets, price alone would the viable decision factor, even if
time didn't matter (and for most of us it does...)


Airlines have a flexibility which trains do not. Trains have to
build tracks and stations. Airlines just build stations.

"Luca Logi" wrote in message
...
Alan Thomas Harrison wrote:

If you are travelling, say, Milano to Roma, that is about 600 km. done
in about 4 hours by the speediest ES trains.

On the contrary, a trip such as London to Rome needs about 24 hours by
train and few hours (always including time spent in flight procedures)
by airplane

Another factor for internal train travel within Italy, as opposed to
international travel, is the extremely reasonable price of Italian trains.
The dearest tickets I bought during my recent holiday were first class
intercity tickets between Milano Centrale and Desenzano - 111 km for less
than EUR 13. A similar journey in Britain would be asbsurdly expensive in
first class.

Alan Harrison

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
Who quoted you the fare?

International Rail Ltd. and European Rail Ltd.

One of them (I'm not saying which one) quoted £346 (or £264 for
couchette) + £20 fee, pointing out we could get a cheaper deal
(they mentioned £40) by including a Saturday. The other quoted
£429 + £20 fee for an itinerary which they had off their own bat
changed to include a Saturday! The Lille-Dijon TGV leg alone was
£117 per person return.

Both companies replied promptly. We first tried Trainseurope
Ltd. but after first requiring my credit card number just to
give a quote, they never subsequently replied (despite, or perhaps
because of, being based in the UK, and advertising heavily in the
Thomas Cook timetable).