Airport Train to City Center

I can assure you there is nothing romantic feeling about the RER between Paris and CDG ! There are always exceptions to every rule.

I like your romantic optimism Craig, but not for me. I've never minded taking the train back to the airport (even the RER Kim), but I dislike it after an overnight flight when I'm tired and my mind isn't fully functioning. My last trip from FCO to Rome and then to Sorrento would be a do-over if I could. Same for trips from the airport last year in London and a few months earlier in Glasgow.

Yeah I take the RER about half the time, but there is certainly nothing romantic about it, as I said.

Most interesting is that is that most of those cities do not actually have "airport trains". Schiphol, Frankfurt, Tel Aviv just have trains stations on the country's Intercity network. In Munich it is just a mundane S-Bahn. Dedicated, branded "airport trains" are actually rather rare. Rome has one. Berlin has one now too (in a complete break with German practice). Brussels used to have one. Oslo has one but is getting rid of it.

The Piccadilly line from Heathrow to London is romantic? Efficient? Somewhat. Convenient? Definitely. But romantic?

Rome has one.

We might say that Rome has both. The expensive, no-stop LeoEx is an airport train whereas the cheap FL1 that skips Roma Termini is part of the FL network of local railways in&around Rome.

Now I'm wondering if the Shanghai Transrapid is an airport train or not.

It's true that many "airport trains" are part of the local Metro, including Chicago, the only American city with two airports connected by a train into the city center. (New York isn't up to that standard.) I'm just using "airport train" generically.

I won't quibble over the use of 'airport train' as a generic shorthand. But can't even begin to see the romance of crowded cars and trying to wrangle luggage and watch for pick pockets while jet lagged or tired from a too early wake up. And viewing stretches of warehouses covered in graffiti or depressing looking apartment buildings on those sections of rail where you arent in a black tunnel doesnt really leave me yearning for more of the same. Efficient and economical? Usually. Faster than a taxi? Sometimes. But if I can afford it, I prefer the taxi. But romance is apparently, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Most dedicated airport trains round the world are an excuse to overcharge (some would say fleece) the uninitiated air traveller. And London does that very well at 4 of it's 5 airports.

Yes there are a lot of "romantic" train journeys round the world, but I have yet to encounter an airport train I would place in that category.
As a non-American a number of the Amtrak long distance routes I would place in the "romantic" category in a way that Americans don't.

isn31c I disagree because of my experience.

I have taken two dedicated airport trains: Tokyo and Rome. The Tokyo train ticket cost me the equivalent of $45 U.S. dollars; the Lonely Planet guide said a taxi from the airport to downturn Tokyo would run about $100-$125 (or more) depending on the exact drop location. My Rome train cost about 20 Euros; Rick Steves's guide said a taxi would be about 50 Euros.

Just beyond those two examples, it's always more economical to take a train -- whether it's a dedicated line or part of a larger metro network -- than a taxi.

I doubt airport vans and shuttles from airports to cities would be much cheaper than dedicated trains. If they are, it wouldn't be by much.

All the other airport trains I have taken are part of metro systems. Metro tickets are substantially cheaper than taxis.