The Philosophy of Train v Plane

I think it very much depends on the distance to be covered. The train probably wins in terms of convenience and price in distances under about 500 km. But beyond that, the HOURS spent on the train simply get tiring. And with longer train rides you most likely will get more issues with connections, possible missing one and prolonging an already long train ride. When you fly within Europe you usually have direct flights.

Example: When we met up with my brother and his wife in Tuscany they had come in by train from Germany. They had booked a night train which ran 2 hours late. That meant they missed connections, had to use alternate ones, lost reservations and the entire trip took them 18 hours!! They were absolutely exhausted by the time they arrived. And no, that is not a very unusual experience. For the way back they combined train rides with a flight and the entire trip door-to-door was under 8 hours. that meant one more day we were able to spend together instead of sitting in a train.

I've done both, but prefer trains, particularly if the distance is not too long. I'm not really interested in taking an overnight train. I love train travel, and I think all of the big bustling trains stations in Europe are cool. I wish this travel was more a part of life in the United States. Perhaps as part of our economic stimulus more trains will be built!

Well, since I am scared of flying, I pretty much limit it to times I don't have a choice (trans-Atlantic crossings, business trips).

However, I think getting to a train station and on a train is less stressful and time consuming, and I think it's better for the planet.

Personally, I haven't flown within Europe except as a continuation of my initial flight (Frankfurt to Zurich as the last leg of my flight from the States). However, for me I think it would have to depend on how far I was going and how much time I had on my trip. For example, if for some reason I was trying to get from England to Greece, I think I would rather not use two of my travel days on the train (or one, I'm not really sure how long it takes by train). On the other hand, I probably wouldn't plan a trip that had England and Greece on the itinerary with nothing in between!

However, when my wife (then fiancee) and I met up in Switzerland, she was coming from Spain after a 6 week study abroad program. She decided she was much more interested in seeing me after 6 weeks than spending over 8 hours on a train from Madrid to Zurich. The plane was also cheaper.

I do agree that the train experience is part of the journey for me (my wife concurs)- since we don't really have that experience here (I'm not going to count Amtrak as analogous to a European train trip!). But I can also see times when you are more interested in spending time in the destination than you are on the train. And as always, money comes into play.

Bottom line - for me it completely depends on the situation. Like everything in life, it isn't all one way or all the other.

Cary, you're absolutely right, nothing is entirely one way or the other. I fly when necessary or the train is just not convienent. I wonder if we will ever have a viable passenger rail system in this country again?

And Cate, I think it's definitely better for the planet.

My experience has been that it can be cheaper to fly. So cheaper wins. Last summer I flew Paris to Rome for 80 euros, but the train was going to be 300+ euros. Plus, frankly,, many train trips not just not that scenic,, for instance the middle of France is a bit blah,, and also, night trains, well you pretty well miss any scenerey at night .

I have really enjoyed the few train trips through Switerland , and parts of Germany , Austria and northern Italy,, but these are often shorter distances.

I also booked my hubby on flights from London to Germany,, the trains would have taken alot longer!!

Sometimes the train ride is the destination,, sometimes you just want to get from point a to b quickly.

Now, once we are retired and have months at a time to travel I may rethink my postion, but for now, time at destinations I chose is still fairly precious to me,, and of course I always seek out a bargain

I also don't sleep well on trains, so overnighters for longer trips not only waster my time, but I arrive tired and dirty feeling, not my fave way to start the day.

Several decades ago, I counted up all of my flights in this country and it came to over 200, and I've done a lot more since. Then, in the eighties, I had some business trips to Europe and we traveled primarily by plane and by car. I didn't find that either of those modes of travel were substantially different, certainly no more interesting, than they are in this country.

So, the nice thing is that if you want to drive or fly, you don't have to go all the way to Europe to do it. On the other hand, train travel in Europe is an experience you can't have here.

I've flown over the middle of France, and it was very, very blah.

Whether you fly over here or in Europe, you are going to spend a lot of time getting to/from airports, standing in line to check in, standing in line for security, and just plain waiting around.

I think the "rule of thumb" here is that it takes about 6 hours total for an hour flight. And, that is IF the start and destination towns are near airports. Last year, I went by train from a small town in Germany to another small town in Germany. It took me 7 hours; just getting to and from the closest airports would have taken five hours.

On thing that is poorly understood is that there are points of interest in between say Rome and Paris (like all of Switzerland). Making these mega-leaps doesn't really make much sense, unless you are on business or never plan to return again to Europe.

Pat. Yes, being retired certainly has a lot to do with your perspective on time. As far as cost, if the EU ever gets around to putting a carbon tax on everything as I believe they will that will change things a lot.

Bea, I agree with you entirely, that's why we generally don't take one long journey, rather a series of shorter ones, time permitting. And, maybe we've been lucky, but we have had very few unpleasant experiences with the train; I wish I could say that about flying. I just wonder how many people out there have never even considered the train and just automatically head for the airport.

Right on, Lee. That's the point exactly; there is a lot to see between point a and point b. You can't see squat at 30,000 feet. And, as you say, the train gives you an experience you can't really get in this country. That's also why we stay in B&Bs and funky little hotels. If I want to stay in a Holiday Inn I can do that here.

BG, I hope you're right; we could use better public transportation in this country.

Call me odd, but I have yet to be on a boring train ride. I love looking out the window at the changing landscape, the sky, the style of houses, animals in the fields, the towns, going down to the dining car for coffee, and walking around.

When I get off my train I am usually right in the city center, not so much with a plane. I have flown though, to Milan, Rome, and Athens, since those are quite long train rides from here. But they are usually weekend trips for me, not a long vacation. I do think it is important to look at the amount of carbon we use up, and riding a train is an excellent way to help reduce the amount.

I guess I have been lucky with trains being on time. The only time we seem to have problems is in Belgium. Every time we come back from there, something breaks on the train, and we have delays, have to wait on another train, you name it. This has happened like 6 times in a row! Guess I better stop going after that chocolate!

BG, the only train I know of being added in the stimulus is between LA and Las Vegas. Otherwise, it is kind-of a hodge-podge of special projects. Unfortunately, as that would have been a great opportunity to add infrastructure!

I'm a train man myself. I believe the train journey is just as important as the destination. I love looking at scenery from a train which is why I never take night trains. You can't see much from a night train.

Now, if the distance I am taveling is very long, and/or I have already done that itinerary by train, I would look into flying.

As an example, on my next trip, I will need to go from London to Luxembourg and back again. I'm gong to train it one way, and fly the other. I may also have to go from London to Berlin and back. Way too long for a train so I will fly it.

These days I wish that I never had to fly again! Part of me wants to move back to Europe just so that I would never have to do it again. It has become just a major pain and I used to love it!

Some of my best memories are from my train trips to Paris from Helsinki. It was so cheap - $150 for a ticket that you could ride trains all month with. Those days it was a rite of passage for the youth of Europe to get an Interail ticket and go with a friend and see the continent.

I never did the full thing but for years I took the trip to Paris. The ticket included all the Ships and ferries on the way and for a small fee you could upgrade and have a cabin. First there was a Ship from Helsinki to Stockholm. Then I took a train that went on a small ferry crossing from Sweden to Denmark. In Copenhagen I changed to another train. This time I would have a sleeper called couchette - it slept 6 people. This train went on an other ferry to Germany and all the way to Paris.

It was wonderful! I met people and had interesting conversations. One time I shared a taxi with a boy from England because we both forgot to change our time and thought we were in a hurry to get to the train in Stockholm - then we played cards waiting for the train. There would be interesting people in the couchette to talk to. Only one time some Swedes swapped buddies and had sex in the top bunk but that was an intersting experience also ;).

Hands down for me it is trains!

Interesting to hear the different ideas. Kaarina, I'm with you; if I never got on another airplane it wouldn't break my heart; it's just not fun any more, except for the excitement you feel because you're going on another adventure. Hmmm, not the Mile High Club, but still a pleasant memory for them, I imagine.

I did have an unusual experience about a year ago-we were supposed to ride the Tranzalpine train in New Zealand from Greymouth to Christchurch, but when they were turning the engine around in Greymouth it fell off the turntable! I kid you not. We ended up taking a bus, but, you know, it was okay; the scenery was still gorgeous, we enjoyed the trip and we still laugh about it.

I couple of years ago, I read how much the U.S. had spent on subsidizing passenger service on Amtrak since it's inception. It was less than what we spend on the Drug Enforcement Agency in one year!

Yeah, sort of makes you wonder about our priorities in the US.

Have never taken any flights within Europe, but I have adored our train trips here and there, and like someone else mentioned, train stations are just so very cool. The amount of time that one must spend now in transit and at airport in advance of a flight is not cool. Since our vacation time is so valuable, however, for long distances, we would fly. Now if I had PLENTY of time, I would take the train for certain.

I would rather take a train as well, but some legs of a multi-country Europe trip don't make sense if you are going to spend 15 hours on a train (versus one hour of a plane). My philosophy is:

Under 5 hours, take a train.
Between 5-8 hours, consider a plane.
More than 8 hours, don't bother with the train.

I really wouldn't want to waste an entire day of my travel on trains and night trains really suck (in my opinion). Also, sometimes trains can be harder to deal with depending on how close your connections are.

Arnold, I have to agree with you; there are some impressive sights from the air. Saw Fujisan in its 'snow capped glory' way back, had a great view of the pyramids flying into Cairo a couple of years ago. But later on, seeing them from ground level was even more impressive.

Both modes of trasport have their pros and cons. For very long journeys the train is not very time efficient even though the scenery may be great. For shorter distances, or where getting to the airport is not easy, the train is better.

Also, great scenery can be seen from an airplane too. Last month flying from Hong Kong to Chicago, the plane flew over Japan - it was amazing to see Mt Fuji in all its snow capped glory as well as seeing all of Tokyo from the air. Similarly, flying over the snow capped Alps or flying over the length of the Bosphorous when landing at Istanbul provide some amazing sights that can't be seen from the train.

For me it's utility and economics. I don't find any more romance in taking a train than in flying or driving a car.

My vacation is a chance to see and do things. The quickest option is preferable because vacation time is precious (and expensive). Sometimes I have to sacrifice time to save money but when I can save time and money it becomes a no-brainer. That seems to be the case with cheap air options in Europe these days.

Having said that, I rarely take an in-Europe flight because I keep my daily travel distance down to reasonable distances rather than build an itenerary that includes London, Paris, Venice and Rome in the same trip.

A train is a pleasant experience and gets points for dropping me in city centers. Flying or training both get points for me not having to drive. I don't mind driving either, but it's really not as thrilling as I imagined it would be when I was 15. I joined the Air Force out of college because I thought I loved flying. I discovered that I really loved traveling - flying was just the best way to get there.

I suppose we could have the same conversation about whether it's better to fly to Europe or take a Tranatlantic cruise. Although sailing to Europe could be great and certainly more comfortable than a long flight, no one asks the question because a cruise eats up too much vacation time and costs significantly more than a flight.

As far as subsidizing Amtrak is concerned, there are at least two ways to look at it.

You can look at it as total amount spent on Amtrak vs. road building/maintenance and decide that we aren't subsidizing Amtrak nearly enough. That's certainly how Amtrak would have you look at it.

Alternatively, you could ask how much is spent per passenger mile on roads vs. Amtrak and where does that money come from?

Per passenger mile the costs don't even compare. The stratospheric costs of Amtrak to produce passenger miles are shameful. When I lived in Washington State we looked at the state's subsidy to Amtrak. It turned out Washington paid $300 to Amtrak for every passenger ticket sold. I've been told that other states don't subsidize Amtrak but I find it hard to believe.

Where does the money come from? Road money comes from gas taxes, so users directly pay the costs of road construction. Amtrak subsidies are truly those. Even at Amtrak's often sky-high fares, the passenger isn't even paying the operating costs of their ride.

As I've said before I'm not against rail but I don't romanticize it and find it hard to justify spending billions on a romantic whim. Since Congress spends my money, I hope they would measure what they get for the money. With transportation, purchasing passenger miles is what it's all about.

Brad, that sounds like a good philosophy, except that I do still enjoy the 'romance' of the train, I guess because we don't do much train travel here in the US. As I have said before, if part of one's travel experience is to interact with the local people, there is no better place to do that than on the train.

And, one of these days I will take a Transatlantic cruise just for the experience, maybe aboard the Queen Mary 2; talk about romantic. And not terribly expensive; do they still have berths in steerage?
:-)

Well, we have found that sometimes a train doesn't exist.

No train to Dubrovnik....
so we flew in on Croatia Airlines and then the ferry up to Split.

Once in Split the train schedule to Zagreb was 5 hours and took a huge chunk of our day...so late the night before we flew from Split to Zagreb for almost the same price as the train and we didnt lose a day of sightseeing.

In Latvia and Lithuania, it was cheaper, safer and better use of our time to fly on Air Baltic between the 2 countries.

We weigh ALL angles when we decide our mode of transportation...whether it's plane, train, ferry, bus ...or gasp hiring a private driver...which I might add in some places is a STEAL!

Remember to think outside the box and realize that what use to be a typical way to say money in travel might not be anymore.

Hmmm, certainly if the train doesn't go there you can't ride it, and I never suggested that the train was always the best alternative. But, for me it is an enjoyable part of the experience; cheapest and fastest are only two of several factors in the equation.

As far as thinking outside the box, that's exactly what I'm trying to encourage here. Apparently, there are a lot of travelers, especially Americans, who just never even think about the train and automatically head for the airport. Understandable, given that we typically don't have that option in the States, but those folks just aren't aware of the experiences (good and bad, certainly) they are passing up.

I think that there are actually 3 schools of thought. One that says they each have their own benefits.

Trains normally go downtown to downtown. Planes dont. Trains rarely get cancelled or delayed to the degree flights do. Trains allow you to participate in the "journey". Planes dont.

Aircraft frequently get you there faster (and sometimes much, much cheaper)allowing you to participate in a "journey" someplace that you might not have had the chance to do sitting on a 14 hr train to get there.

Its a balancing act. I've done both when it made sense.

Larson, of course one must do what makes sense given the circumstances. But, as Lee so aptly said in an earlier post:

"One thing that is poorly understood is that there are points of interest in between say Rome and Paris (like all of Switzerland). Making these mega-leaps doesn't really make much sense, unless you are on business or never plan to return again to Europe."

That's why I don't take 14 hour train rides; best to divide it up into manageable chunks whenever possible and not try to cover so much distance in one trip.

Ash,

I take a Virginia Railway Express commuter train daily to downtown DC so I think it does lose it's romance when you are on a train regularly (just like driving or flying for a living lose their luster when you do them often).

Everyone who is traveling to Europe for the first time needs to take at least one train. If nothing else it's a cultural experience and forces most people to get outside their comfort zone.

I think that when discussing Amtrak and other train issues in the US you also have to consider the purpose of the trains. The US is quite a bit bigger and a lot more spread out than Europe is. Europe truly connected itself with trains in the 19th Century and never really relinquished that. The US connected major cities with railways and many smaller cities and towns had the ability to "jump aboard" but it wasn't for business travel as it was in Europe. Most of our "commuter travel" originated with roads and planes and that is why they are more convenient here. If you'll notice, there is commuter service other than Amtrak between places like Philly and DC and Baltimore and DC and NY and Boston. Miami is just WAY to far from Atlanta to make train travel in a business since feasible - but both of those cities became huge business hubs AFTER the car was the preferred mode of transport and cheaper plane travel made it possible to move people. Please remember you can go from Edinburgh to York in a couple of hours by train. It would be 5-6 from Miami to Atlanta (with minimal stops).

Ash...your point of view would assume that I want to (or have the time to) see something (on any one particular trip) between point A and B on the 14 hr train ride. I for one find the overnight train between, say, Paris and Rome a great deal on a whole host of levels. Go to sleep in Paris--wake up in Rome. I suppose if I wasnt gainfully employed, or independently wealthy, or retired--I might "break up" that trip.

But the hard reality is that, for most of us, vacation time(the biggest luxury we have) is finite.

I guess my point is that, airplanes and trains are tools, nothing more. Which ever one allows me to see what I want to see during that finite amount of time, is the one I'm going to use.

In response to what Larson posted -

for some folks it is the journey and not just the destination that matters