"After 9/11 air travel started to become far more time-consuming - for reasons of security which no one would ever criticise. People used to say no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours but I think four would now be more accurate."
I'm with you on the 4 hours, but I would be happy to criticize the security theater after 9/11.
Because past 3 hours the time/cost savings compared to air starts to look really unfavorable. Air travel has a high "fixed cost" (getting to the airport, going through security, picking up any checked luggage) but a low "variable cost" (it's much faster than a train), while the reverse is true for trains. Anything longer than 3-4 hours and the lower variable cost of air travel overcomes its higher fixed cost.
A critical factor here is how far away you live from an airport that services your destination. That can work out to be quite unfavourable, to the point where even a 6 hour car trip is preferable over a 3 hour plane ride.
The one that annoys me most is: "This is a safety announcement. Due to today's inclement weather, please take extra care whilst on the station. Surfaces may be slippery."
Falling down the stairs is a leading cause of death or injury on Britain's railways (no-one has died on a train since 2007), but I'd like to see some proof that the announcement makes any difference to people's behaviour. They play it pretty much any time it rains!
Its like an elderly aunt reminding you to take your umbrella. What does she take you for, a child? Especially annoying if you've forgotten your umbrella.
From what I see here in Germany, 5h train rides are not an issue for many people. It's just that on major routes, flying is very competitive.
I don't like the fact, but flying is cheaper in many cases, and inside the EU security is (in my experience) not that annoying. I mean, I have a 50% rebate card and even inside Germany, there are quite a scenarios where trains are only cheaper than flying if I take regional trains, at which point the time advantage of flying suddenly is quite large, and coaches become an agressivly priced alternative. And that despite the fact that I have a 50% rebate card for trains.
Start to cross borders and it gets worse.
EDIT: not to say that trains are not used, but especially among young people coaches, ride shares or flying are strong alternatives. Trains are great for short distances and if you want to go somewhere that is hard to reach otherwise.
At least in Germany this is not true, train ridership is on a steady rise [0]: DB serviced 14 million passengers more in 2014 compared to the previous year.
We still need to separate commuter rail, regional and intercity. Intercity is smallest on the basis of ridership but it makes up with distance travelled, ticket prices and economic importance.
I have also taken a night train from Vienna to Paris (and then a regular TGV to La Rochelle).
Night trains are wonderful, they save you a night at the hotel, and they basically make the journey take no effective time from your holidays... but SNCF wants to get rid of them entirely, or so I heard.
That must have been the official Orient Express, which was reduced from its original Paris-Istanbul route to Paris-Bucharest in 1977, then Paris-Vienna in 2001, Strasbourg-Vienna in 2007, and cancelled in 2009.
I thought it was DB who wanted to do away with them. But maybe SNCF too. Due to European railway regulation and thoughtless implementation of the same by the individual countries, international (night) trains have become quite expensive to run. (This in addition to the obvious factors of fast daytime TGVs and irresponsibly cheap airplane flights.)
They recently built a really large tunnel near Vienna, which is supposed to be a part of the planned high-speed connection from Bratislava/Budapest to Paris.
It will be "completed" in 2020, so we will probably see Trains going in this direction soon.
People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam).
I trained around the eastern US a bit, and while north of DC the trains are heavily-used and a 'normal' experience, south of DC the trains were very laid back and comfortable. They're subsidised, so the tickets are dirt-cheap, few people use them, they're comfortable and spacious, have power for laptops, and even have an entire car dedicated to sitting in a lounge chair facing outward to watch the scenery roll by ("oh, more kudzu..."). The only downside is that the stations were only at major locations, so not many stopping points, which was fine for what I was doing.
+1 for trains, one of the best ski trips I went on involved London St Pancras to the south of france via train, roamed around, took pretty unlimited baggage, a real pleasure (even at around 8 hours) - would not fly again (2hr flight + travel, security etc).
This is why I'm skeptical about the importance of high speed rail. Normal speed rail is fine in today's world because the main thing people need is solid broadband. Just make the cars really comfortable provide rock solid broadband. Business class passengers wouldn't even mind six hour trips if pretty much the whole thing was billable and comfortable, and the schedule was totally reliable with fast boarding.
It depends on your definition of "normal speed". If it's 80 km/hour, then it is limited to regional rail or sleeper overnight trains. If it's 150 km/hour, it's already kind of fast if you ask me.
I agree. And theater is the right word. I just don't believe that all those procedures, such as taking out your laptop, bagging liquids, and removing your shoes, are actually useful in improving safety.
It's also incredibly stressful for the staff. I was in line in the US once and one lady had a meltdown. She saw the queue of people going around the corner and basically just threw her hands up and quit. The face on her only colleague was priceless.
Add to that the fact that there seem to be some shortcuts taken. I was told if you miss a connection, they take your bag off for obvious reasons. Well, I actually missed a connection once, and the bag went on the plane and I got to pick it up when I caught up.
They're not. In fact, they're a terrible distraction. They put everyone on edge, so it's much more difficult to spot one person acting oddly in the crowd. Shoes, laptops, and liquids rules are all reactions to a single events. Reactionary mouse traps that never get out ahead of the new mouse.
I'm not even sure what benefit it is to the government. I'd be more paranoid about silent security than easily avoidable theatre out in the open.
Agreed completely. I looked on post-9/11 US airport security with much frustration until I got global entry (which includes pre-check). Now, my experience is almost as good as pre-9/11 security (though I can't fly with a pocket knife or multi-tool...).
The whole thing (esp. the database-based pre-check scheme) is just so broken if there were and actual significant persistent threat that I wish we would re-evaluate the whole travel security procedure from a rational (rather than fear-based) perspective.
Its become even more of a farce with Global Entry/TSA Precheck. While $100 (per 5 years) isn't unaffordable to those that fly regularly, the entire program contradicts a lot of the security claims made between 2001 and today.
> It was clear when I travelled back from Marseille that many passengers hadn't realised they would be required to leave the train at the northern city of Lille for passport checks.
When I travelled to/from Romania by train two years ago, border control officers got on the stop before the border, walked through the train to check passports and got off at the next stop, probably taking the next train back. This happened both going into Romania and going back into Hungary.
So, the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process.
It also works travelling from Russia to Finland: Russian boarder guards hop on and check you leaving the country, and then Finnish boarder guards do the same for entering Finland/EU/Schengen. It's not rocket science at all.
"the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process."
Joining Schengen and getting UK immigration boffins to board the trains and operate efficiently have exactly the same problem: they would require competent leadership from 10 Downing Street.
"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again.
...
Even some of those who knew of the Lille stop were surprised to find they had to carry their luggage throughout"
Who would want to do that?
Not only that, the Marseille train leaves London at 07:19! Great for people in London, not so great if you live outside. Firstly, it might not be possible to get in that early, and secondly, mid-week, peak fares in to London are extortionate.
I checked a fare in October (Fri-Fri, before half term): £178. Sat-Sat in October: £129.
Flying: £110 return with Easyjet, including baggage. Or from Heathrow with BA: £114. At more reasonable times of day. It's a 2 hour flight.
When I have to choose between a 2 hour flight and a 4 hours train ride, I choose the train. I hate airport security and I find it impossible to do anything in a plane.
It's rarely a choice on that scale in/between England/Scotland, though. London-Scotland is ~4-5 hours on the train, or a 1h-1h15m flight.
EDIT: London-Manchester is probably a good example of a good and popular train journey. While other domestic flights over the years have lost out to rail, London-Scotland by plane has remained popular.
London-Paris is better, at 50 min flight vs 2 hour train.
By the way, I'm not arguing /against/ trains. I love trains and flying is such a hassle these days.
Scotland's big and slow. London to Edinburgh or Glasgow is ~4-5 hours, but London to Inverness is ~8-10, which is way too long.
That said, my favourite way to get to Inverness by train (I have family up there) is by sleeper train. It leaves London city centre at a civilised 2000, gets there at 0730, you can get your own cabin and the restaurant car serves a killer haggis. Plus people actually like being on it and like talking to you, and I've never met anyone on it who was dull.
...the sleeper train has to go specially slowly so as to give you a proper night's sleep.
Tube 30mins -> Liverpool St 45m -> Stanstead 1h -> Fly 1hr -> security/reclaim 30mins -> 20min cab ride =4h05m
But on the train you get 4 hrs uninterrupted work time and first class is often only £10-20 extra and gets you unlimited free food, booze and wifi. Way better value than a BA flight
Your flight arrives at Marignane though, taxi to Marseille is around 40€ and half an hour. I don't know how long and expensive is the journey to London's airports.
I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g:
- Departure: how to arrive, time, expense.
- Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense.
- Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense.
I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be going to the inner city, and in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city.
> in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city
Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower.
The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow passengers, for a shuttle to come even though it had been supposed to show up 20 minutes after we started waiting. The driver then explained us that "you're in Marseille, that's normal!". And he was kinda right. The shuttle was also late for the return flight, actually, just not too late.
Well, I don't have much experience with pre-1am shuttles, except the one for the return flight which left maybe just 30 minutes late.
But when the 1:30 shuttle shows up at 3:00 and tells you that you should have expected it, I think it does tell something about the reliability and frequency of connections to the city.
The other systems I have experience with are Paris' RER, which is... okay, I guess, Copenhague's metro which makes the journey really easy, and Budapest's public transit which takes 1 hour and several changes. Copenhague is the only one I would consider reliable.
It's only one train a day, so it doesn't need to fulfil that much of a market (i.e. it's enough to cover just the people who are in central London and able to get there by 7.00). Also, it stops at Lyons and Avignon on the way, Marseille is an addition to the service, not the main purpose:
> In fact, a few days ago, getting the train to the UK, only a few passengers boarded at Marseille. But the Eurostar filled up nicely at Avignon and Lyon where it stops as it heads north.
Good point about the change, though. That really renders the headline untrue. It's not a direct service.
Having to get off the train for 75 minutes, with all your luggage etc., is effectively "changing train" to most people, even if you end up getting back on the same train.
Heathrow (and perhaps UK airport security as a whole) is also more restrictive in my experience than US/Canada/Schengen airports, so there's another point for the train.
(Seized contact lens solution bottle, I'm looking at you!)
Not if you're just transiting. Sterile transit just plain doesn't exist at US airports (or at least, didn't when I last checked, which was a few years ago - maybe things are different now?), so changing planes takes bloody hours instead of minutes, and requires going through exit procedures and then coming back through security.
Well, while going Canada->LHR->Schengen airport, I definitely had to go through UK security again, as well as passport control to connect to an "international" flight to France. I didn't even leave the terminal.
"Everyone who boards an aircraft at Heathrow has to be security screened to UK government standards. Even if you've already been through security checks at another airport, we're obliged to screen you again before you fly from Heathrow."
I guess when faced with the choice of taking a risk-based approach toward security, and applying an equal amount of security to all, they chose the latter.
At least the UK lets you check through your bags, unlike the US.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm spoiled by modern airports, which Heathrow definitely is not.
When I change at modern airports, usually in Europe, I very rarely have to go out and back in again. In Geneva[1], the layout of the airport was essentially reconfigured around me to let me walk from one plane to the next. I was the only person doing it; I walked through empty glass-walled corridors, watching through the glass as other passengers went their various ways, guided by wall displays pointing me towards the next flight (no other flights on it; just mine) and at one point I got to a train platform cut in half by a glass wall. The other side was a hundred or so people, and when the train came, I was in one half, and they were in the other. We were likewise segregated at the destination platform. I walked all the way to the departure lounge before I reached a person, whose job was to let me in and not let anyone in the lounge leave through my private entrance. It was basically how you'd expect a modern airport to work; to know who on each flight needed to leave and who needed to be guided to another flight, and for the displays and corridors to provide it.
Only for international arrivals. Domestic->domestic or domestic->international transits usually don't require reclearing security (other than screwball airports like LAX that just don't have airside connections between every terminal).
The last time I did a transit through Heathrow I was horrified to discover that they've stopped doing proper transit as well. Entry procedures and security, and it's not like Heathrow does this well at the best of times. At least I didn't have to pick up my luggage.
Usually you can take a bus between terminals and transit without clearing UK immigration, just hand luggage security. It used to be the same for T5 in-terminal transit. Security check is needed because of variance in origin country security. UK border checks are so slow that I can't imagine them wanting the cost of processing transit traffic.
All trains from London are direct to Europe, even if they are local. I find the wording and the idea behind it as stupid as the trouble in Lille due to not being part of Schengen.
Signed: a Schengen national that hates and avoids lay-overs in Heathrow like the plague.
I recently travelled from Cambridge, UK to Amsterdam. Given that I strongly dislike modern air travel for all the usual reasons, I went by train. It was striking just how much more pleasant that journey was than a flight to another European capital that I took not so long ago.
I had to be at the international terminal at St Pancras in London a half-hour before the train left, though I think some of the more expensive business-class tickets only require you to be there 10 minutes early.
Getting in meant showing ticket, passport, and some routine security scans, the latter being quick and not nearly as intrusive or theatrical as typical modern airport security. (I’m a rather private person, and just the possibility of being put through one of the virtual strip-search machines at an airport is enough to make me not want to fly anywhere any more, even without all the other hassle and time required.)
On the train, there probably are some luggage limitations if you read the full terms, but no-one was taking a ruler to my backpack or weighing my suitcase and charging me extra on the return journey just because I had added a 1kg souvenir. My suitcase was within reach/eyesight throughout my journey, and there was ample space for smaller luggage right by my seat throughout as well.
Perhaps the most striking thing of all was that once I was clear of the UK, changing trains at Brussels (from the international Eurostar from London to an also-international Thalys to Amsterdam) was as simple as changing local services back home. The second train literally pulled into the station a few minutes before it was due to leave, I just went onto the platform, and the only fuss at all was because the train had reserved seating so someone helpfully checked my ticket and pointed out where my seat was as I boarded.
I haven’t travelled between many different places within continental Europe (as distinct from travelling between the UK and a European destination) but if that’s the norm within the Schengen Area then we’re doing it wrong. Transport systems should be primarily about getting the travellers to where they want to go efficiently and pleasantly, and most of Europe appears to be much better at those things than we are.
Fun fact: you can also take the bus (IDBUS) under the channel. There is literally no security: chuck your luggage in the back, show 'em your ticket PDF, and off you go. Not as cushy or fast as a train, but hey — Brussels to London for €30 ain't bad.
And your third option is the overnight (or daytime) ferry from Harwich. Tickets are sold that include a train connection from East Anglia (or London) to anywhere in the Netherlands.
It's very nice, though Harwich is a bit of a dump (not very welcoming).
Better to wait until the EU referendum to find out in what direction the public wants to proceed. Quite a few generations have grown up with no real say on the topic.
I find it fascinating that much of the hold up is having multiple signalling systems for each country in their train. Is there a web site that talks about the different systems in some more detail? I've been following Caltrain's installation of new signalling (in theory to support more frequent trains and the high speed rail service) and was surprised to find them as complicated as they are.
The track sizes and electricity are also problematic.
Portuguese and Spanish tracks have a smaller width than the rest of Europe.
So Portuguese trains only travel to Spain (the few that exist). And Spanish trains have a system where they can change the width between the wheels when going to France.
Similarly, trains travelling between Belgium and Germany, if I am not mistaken, have dual electricity system.
Border-crossing lines are utterly fascinating. The traditional visual signalling system tends to change exactly at the border, but you may find pre-signals just inside the other country. The in-cabin signalling and automatic train protection may or may not change at the same location. Changeover of the electrical system is more elaborate, and can take place at the border, a few kilometers inside one of the countries, or at one of the larger stations on either side, in which case you will find switchable tracks at that station.
There are different allowed widths and heights ("loading gauge") for train cars in different countries. Finally, few people know that the overhead lines veer a little bit to the left and right to spread the wear on the pantographs. The extent to which this happens also differs between countries, and some countries have narrower pantographs than others, which means that trains cannot just ride both in Germany and Switzerland even though they have the same electrical system.
Seems like unification of signaling systems across European railways might help alleviate some of these problems. It would be interesting to see if they're actually legitimately dissimilar or more just similar but incompatible for historical reasons.
The systems vary wildly, from inductive loops at the side of the track placed near each signal (PZB), electrical contacts between the rails (Crocodile), to signals transmitted through the rails (ATB) or through leaky cables along the whole track (LZB). The installed base is obviously huge. There are often several not-entirely-compatible variants within each country, mostly for cost reasons.
Oh yes, also patents.
Currently railways are installing the European ERTMS system on many tracks, usually as a second system so both trains using the local traditional system and the new ERTMS can ride there. However, it is quite complicated and it turns out not all trainside implementations talk correctly with all railside ones.
I'm with you on the 4 hours, but I would be happy to criticize the security theater after 9/11.