Trains vs Planes and Automobiles

This thread has taken on a life of it's own Really interesting reading.

In response to James Silverton, BR used to operate on a cost per mile basis back in the day. I think I agree with other posters that faster trains on popular routes be more expensive. The problem with the fare structure is imho one of PR. There are some good deals available when you advance purchase or go via Groupsave. In an ideal world trains would be full because people are availing themselves of these offers and train companies wouldn't make money by charging really high on-the-day prices.

However, it is not much different than airfares. People like to say, "Well I can go to New York for the same price as travelling to Manchester" which is an unfair comparison. Yes, people have to pay a lot more on the day, but if you turned up to Heathrow on the day and tried to book a flight to NY it wouldn't be £300 it would be £1800.

I think train companies need to make good deals more widely known. As an exception I think London is a pretty expensive place to travel, and fares are increasing much beyond the rate of inflation. I can't speak for other regions as it may well be the same. If trains are to be a serious alternative in terms of convenience then prices need to compare well with driving.

In response to Martin van Ludwig, I think you may be referring to the Artesia service which ceased in December 2011. There are plans to have a service operated by Thello up and running by June 2012 (offering connections to Florence and Rome from Paris). Meanwhile there is an overnight service from Paris calling at Milan Verona and Venice as well as a couple more intermediate stations.

Lastly, I think there can be success in the USA and Canada with rail projects. Of course in certain areas (less densely populated regions) it might not make sense initially but first rail has to be seen as a potential rival to driving - which with only a skeleton network and it being not nearly as reliable by contrast with Europe - makes it a bit of a joke. There are efficient railway networks in parts of Scandinavia with a much lower population density than Western Europe, so it's not impossible.

I think that it is more of a problem of urban patterns. My impression on visiting relatives stateside (in LA and San Francisco) is that on the whole, you need to get in a car to go anywhere - even to get a train in some circumstances. I only speak from limited experience but it seems that there is something profound in how Eisenhower's vision for an Interstate Highway system shaped the cultural and physical landscape of the country. Although the car was seen as the ultimate expression of freedom, now you're incumbent to it to get your shopping or go to work, which just isn't the case in much of the UK.

And that is something that has not to do with just population density but an urban transport pattern that isn't at all built for public transit - or pedestrians for that matter. So I wonder what US cities would look like if Eisenhower's vision had been for rail? Just my tuppence

Thanks for the lively discussion!

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.

2.3.2012 22:49, Tom P kirjoitti:


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.

Enjoyable ways of spending time is most personal a thing. There is great
variety there.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:49:20 +0100, 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.

That conclusion is most certainly not supported by your evidence.



--
"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






--
"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 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.

Loco2 wrote:
This thread has taken on a life of it's own Really interesting
reading.


Lastly, I think there can be success in the USA and Canada with rail
projects. Of course in certain areas (less densely populated regions) it
might not make sense initially but first rail has to be seen as a
potential rival to driving - which with only a skeleton network and it
being not nearly as reliable by contrast with Europe - makes it a bit of
a joke. There are efficient railway networks in parts of Scandinavia
with a much lower population density than Western Europe, so it's not
impossible.

Amtrak trains, more so on some routes than others, are still a great way to
travel, but in the middle of the country one has to drive long distances to
and from their few stations, most often with no half-way decent place to
leave one's car. For me it would be a drive of over an hour! I have
traveled with a friend who lives near one of those stations, and I quite
enjoyed it.

I think that it is more of a problem of urban patterns. My impression on
visiting relatives stateside (in LA and San Francisco) is that on the
whole, you need to get in a car to go anywhere - even to get a train in
some circumstances. I only speak from limited experience but it seems
that there is something profound in how Eisenhower's vision for an
Interstate Highway system shaped the cultural and physical landscape of
the country. Although the car was seen as the ultimate expression of
freedom, now you're incumbent to it to get your shopping or go to work,
which just isn't the case in much of the UK.

In large cities there are urban transit systems. In rural areas there is
often not even a nearby bus. Where I live, it's 10 miles to the gas station
where a bus stops once a day.

And that is something that has not to do with just population density
but an urban transport pattern that isn't at all built for public
transit - or pedestrians for that matter. So I wonder what US cities
would look like if Eisenhower's vision had been for rail? Just my
tuppence

We'd have a better rail system, at least.

Thanks for the lively discussion!

From me as well. It has been interesting.



--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

On 03/03/2012 07:57 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
2.3.2012 22:49, Tom P kirjoitti:


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.

Enjoyable ways of spending time is most personal a thing. There is great
variety there.

That is true, but the OP asked, why more people don't take more trips
round Europe in trains. So the answer is, there are lots of other ways
to spend your annual vacation that are more attractive to most people.

On 03/03/2012 09:58 AM, bill wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:49:20 +0100, 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.

That conclusion is most certainly not supported by your evidence.



You think so. Please elaborate.

Tom P 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.


--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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?