Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32916197

by chestnut-tree • 11 years ago

86 72 11 years ago

bbc.co.uk

protomyth• 11 years ago

"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.

UnoriginalGuy2• 11 years ago

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.

lordnacho• 11 years ago

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.

themartorana• 11 years ago

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.

jeff_marshall• 11 years ago

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.

guard-of-terra6• 11 years ago

"no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so?

People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam).

And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage.

I would say 5 hours should be non-issue.

"As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that is many years away."

Remember there's already a direct train connection between Moscow and Paris.

Most people choose to fly these days, of course.

seszett4• 11 years ago

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.

adevine• 11 years ago

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.

detaro• 11 years ago

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.

a8da6b0c91d• 11 years ago

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.

vacri• 11 years ago

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.

moszja• 11 years ago

+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).

Scoundreller2• 11 years ago

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!)

EliRivers2• 11 years ago

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.

Scoundreller2• 11 years ago

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."

http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight...

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.

saryant• 11 years ago

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).

david-given3• 11 years ago

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.

justincormack2• 11 years ago

Well not joining Schengen is stupid, and easily fixed.

dageshi• 11 years ago

Doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

JesperRavn• 11 years ago

Saying what you think is stupid isn't a useful contribution. If you're going to spam political opinions, at least give some argument.

(edited for tone)

Chris_Newton• 11 years ago

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.

archagon• 11 years ago

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.

Symbiote2• 11 years ago

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).

ticksoft2• 11 years ago

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.

UnoriginalGuy2• 11 years ago

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.

gpvos5• 11 years ago

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.

switch0074• 11 years ago

"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.

seszett4• 11 years ago

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.

switch0074• 11 years ago

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.

bnegreve• 11 years ago

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.

I agree that flying is generally cheaper though.

switch0074• 11 years ago

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.

dharma1• 11 years ago

I did London -> Geneva eurostar over xmas hols. The change in Lille is shit. Broke my ankle rushing to the next train with all the luggage.

Brakenshire• 11 years ago

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.

Rexxar• 11 years ago

I think direct here means "without changing train" not "without any stops".

guard-of-terra6• 11 years ago

There is rail connection between Arkhangelsk and Sochi (that's around 2500 km), so why not with western europe shorter distances and faster trains.

I don't see why they have to leave trains at all for customs. This seems easily fixable.

ZanyProgrammer2• 11 years ago

Because that's entirely within one country. Thats roughly the distance between London and Moscow.

guard-of-terra6• 11 years ago

There is rail connection between Azerbaijan and Ukraine and it crosses two borders.

ChuckMcM• 11 years ago

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.

gpvos5• 11 years ago

Wikipedia isn't too bad on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Train_protection_syst... - and see my reply elsewhere on this page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9631443

I would expect there to be a few real experts on HN, though. (I'm not one.)

pjmlp• 11 years ago

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.

gpvos5• 11 years ago

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.

ZanyProgrammer2• 11 years ago

You might be interested in this update of CBOSS and Caltrain. http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/05/cboss-headed-for-tr...

moschlar• 11 years ago

At least for German signalling rules, these sites are trying to explain it in English: http://www.sh1.org/eisenbahn/index.htm or http://www.joernpachl.de/German_principles.htm (Railway Engineering professor)

saool• 11 years ago

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.

leonhandreke• 11 years ago

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.

sasvari2• 11 years ago

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.

WildUtah• 11 years ago

"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.

Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

Related Stories