Hacker News Reader

I'm not so sure.

I took the fated Trenhotel Joan Miró that the author talks about. It was a little over 100€ and covered the distance in twelve hours, like the author said. After getting off that train, economically I could not fathom why anybody would ever subject themselves to that experience again.

The 100€ got me a seat in the back of the train in a semi-reclined seat (the least expensive ticket I could buy). I booked it about four weeks in advance. For 150€, I could get an actual bed to sleep in (four to a compartment), and the price/service level went up from there. If the train had free food or even just free water, Wi-Fi, showers, and such like you describe (at least at that price level), it'd potentially be a different experience. But Trenhotel's stock is about as old as it gets, and what you get for the base price of 100€ makes for quite an unfortunate twelve hours.

I just went to Vueling, and I can fly from Barcelona to Paris for 40€ in two hours. Even with security, time to/from the airport and such, I'm still saving time and money. Copious amounts of baggage is the only thing left out, but I could pay 100€ to check piles and piles of bags, and now I spend slightly more than the Trenhotel and arrive five times faster.

High speed trains make sense for semi-long distances. Paris to Amsterdam is a great example. Three hours on modern equipment is very doable, and a plane ride can't beat that in time (fixed costs of security and required early arrival are too high). Comfort is superior, and the price will come down. The author makes the point that the cost is 2x but the travel time is only slightly faster. These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh out of the factory. Give it a few years, and they will come down. I'll bet you the old "vintage" routes that the author pines over were pretty darn expensive when they too were first inaugurated.

For the <4 hour trips, high speed rail is excellent, and I believe those prices will fall. But anything longer than that, forget the night trains. They're only semi-useful for tourists and backpackers, and I'm shocked they still operate. I'll fly, thanks.

Interesting. If trains only make sense for trips of <4 hours, how does that impact the California High-Speed Rail project?

Higher speeds!

a) Stop less. b) Take a more direct route.

The distance between SF and LA is such that it /should/ take under 4 hours.

Love to know a <4hr route that you can do even at safe slightly-over-the-speed-limit speeds.

(CA native).

I have done San Jose to San Diego in 5.5 hours. Not going to tell you how fast I was driving.

No. You will never make it in four hours. 5.5 is about the minimum.

Why not? 350 miles in a straight line, 380 by road; Paris to Avignon is 390 miles by rail, journey time of 2:39 in service. I don't see why 5.5 hours is needed?

The road isn't as straight as it looks, I guess. Also, it's only two lanes in each direction, and the route has a lot of commercial traffic.

Ah, I think we've been talking past each other. The typical view of HSR is that it is viable for HSR journeys of four hours or less — not that it is viable for car journeys of four hours or less. This means SF–LA should be well within the viable HSR distance (per above, it really shouldn't take more than three hours by HSR).

That may be true. Certainly I'll ride it if they ever get the damn thing built.

Here (Copenhagen) trains have a pretty big share of the market up to about 5 hours. Copenhagen–Hamburg (4.5 hr), Copenhagen–Stockholm (5 hr), and Copenhagen–Aalborg (5 hr) are all popular routes.

Yes but most of the time you can still get cheaper flights to Hamburg or Aalborg. And here we are talking old slow-speed trains.

"Interesting. If trains only make sense for trips of <4 hours, how does that impact the California High-Speed Rail project?"

Disclosure: I am pro-rail and pro-CA-rail ...

Better to refer to it as "California Rail" and not "California High Speed Rail" since the speed and travel time is modern, circa 2005 or so. As of 2015 it is looking a bit sluggish compared to competitors globally and by the time it is actually running, with riders, it will be decidedly slow by comparison.

Anything under 2 hours from city center LA to city center SF is very interesting and a real game changer. But 2:40 or more ? And I am potentially stepping off a train in LA which is absolutely governed by car infrastructure ? That sounds like a wash, at best.[1]

[1] As opposed to a 5.5 (or so) hour drive, with complete control over departure time, unlimited luggage, total control over your own environment and when you arrive you have your car with you already ...

So why are you pro-CA-rail? Do you think they'll surprise you with a faster train and good public transit in LA?

The grand central train station in LA is well connected to the local light rail network. It is also in downtown LA, so there are plenty of business, pleasure and cultural destination just a short cab/light rail/bus ride away.

If nations applied the same silly security theater to trains that they force upon aircraft, the train advantage would be cut to ~2hr trips.

Trains are harder to crash into buildings, so hopefully sanity will prevail. (The Madrid train bombs happened and no excessive security was applied as a result)

Spain does have slightly enhanced security for long-distance train journeys. At Malaga, for example, there are "security" checks and closing times. Advice by RailEurope is to arrive 30 mins prior to departure...

A hijacked train doesn't make as good an improvised missile as a hijacked plane, so the threat profile isn't the same -- so its not surprising that the security treatment is different.

Far easier just to shoot down the planes, assuming reinforced doors, air marshals, and passengers aren't enough. No, I don't think there's anything rational about it, beyond the rational calculation of shirt-term advantage by politicians.

> Far easier just to shoot down the planes

Not if they are taken control of near their targets.

Prevention is clearly better than response.

> No, I don't think there's anything rational about it

To the extent that some of the actual measures are theater, they are theater that has a real reason for being presented in the particular context they are presented in. Some of them may be irrational as security measures, but they aren't completely arbitrary.

This is one of the major advantages of trains vs planes, together with stations usually being in city centres.

However, I've had my share of security theatre with trains as well... At least with EuroStar from London to Brussels, and with bullet trains leaving from Madrid.

> At least with EuroStar from London to Brussels

Yeah, true, but in my (admittedly limited experience of international travel), it was very painless compared to airports simply due to having more staff available.

Imagine how much money could be saved by redirecting HSR funds towards faster passenger processing and screening at airports.

Just as much time saved (or more?) for dramatically less money, right?

> These routes were just inaugurated, and the stock is fresh out of the factory.

Well Thalys trains were made in 1995-6 and it shows. They actually have comparable leg room as airplanes (at least with legacy carriers)

Sometimes, due to the variable pricing, a 1st class Thalys ticket can be as cheap as a 2nd class ticket. My wife and I traveled 1st class from Amsterdam to Paris, which was extremely comfortable, and came with free wifi, food and drink, and probably some other luxuries.

The return trip was 2nd class, which meant you had to pay extra for wifi (despite many Dutch intercity trains having free wifi these days), and lacked the free food and drink. Not sure if it was cramped. Still better than a plane, as far as I recall.

But next time, we'll definitely be looking out for cheap 1st class tickets.

> no baggage restrictions/pick-up/lost luggage,

No

Stories are plenty of people that get their baggage stolen while they are sleeping

Your comment is loaded with romantic idealism (which I won't say I don't have as well) but is sorely lacking on the practicality of it

Yes, I like getting to the city center. In Wien this cost me around 4€. In Paris, 17€ (the more expensive bus) or 10€ for the cheapest bus (you can take the RER as well), yes, if you take Ryanair it's probably more to get there.

But staying in a train all night doesn't make me enthusiastic anymore. I'd rather cope with the hassles of air travel but it will still get me somewhere faster.

My one experience of a sleeper (London-Scotland) was horrid. Farts, sick, snoring, alcohol noises and smells all night.

I hope things are better on the mainland. If not, I'd rather take a plane.

I flew back from Glasgow to Stansted for a small fortune to avoid the experience.

I take the London-Edinburgh sleeper fairly regularly, and have only ever had good experiences.

That said, although in theory standard-class passengers have to share, this has only ever happened to me once. I can imagine that if you drew the short straw it could be terrible.

The other big down-side is that you can't have a proper wash on the train; luckily there are some pretty good public swimming baths between Waverley station and our client's offices.

Somewhat off-topic - I found EasyJet to be a cheap alternative to trains going from London to Edinburgh. RyanAir is another one, though they have a reputation of claiming to fly you to one city, only to land in a different one because its airport fees are slightly cheaper [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Alleged_misleading_adve...

Ha! We flew from Paris to Dublin a couple of years ago, but the "Paris" airport was actually in Beauvais, about 80 km north of Paris. The bus ride from Paris to the airport both took longer and cost more than the flight to Dublin.

When I flew with them to spain a few years back, their Barcelona airport was in Girona (105 km away, according to Google maps).

"though they have a reputation of claiming to fly you to one city, only to land in a different one because its airport fees are slightly cheaper"

Well, even though I dislike Ryanair, their information on that aspect is as good as it gets.

They advertise "Paris Beauvais" airport which, ok, is not known by many people but I'm not sure how they could do it better.

I've taken this route a couple of times - the Caledonian sleeper. I had this romantic vision of linen tablecloths and breakfast in bed.

Instead, I got instant coffee and a single croissant served in a vacuum-packed plastic wrapper.

One time, the train even ended up in a Glasgow by mistake.

Croissant! Lucky soul. They had supply problems when I went on it. We had Fosters and microwaved burger for breakfast. Not a great start to the day.

It became apparent at about 11AM that the burger was poison and tried (unsuccessfully I will add) to escape both ends. Sorry if that was too much information.

Oh, we'd have killed for Fosters. All we got was half a cup of brake fluid, and if we said anything the engine driver would stop the train "until everyone was quiet". Then we took a wrong turn at Crewe and ended up in Archangelsk twelve days later with beriberi.

Was is 12? Seemed like 13.

At least the brake fluid was fresh.

I had a window seat, but all I could see was despair. Turns out it was my reflection.

The small lady in the paper hat was nice, but she ran out of cookies before she got to me.

Cookies? Ridiculous! They fed us burning hot coal, then forced us to pull the train while the driver sat up front and whipped us. And we had to pay train driver to let us pull!

Poisoned burger? Luxury. We were served dingy water reclaimed from the train radiator and a pigeon what had flown against a window and died, and told to fend for ourselves. At night a drunken conductor would thrash us all to sleep with a broken bottle of Glenfiddich, shouting various slurs.

The Stena Line ferry to Holland is also superb, it can be very cheap, or you can get a "captain class" cabin that was actually bigger than my flat...

> Basically it's like flying the night before with a free (albeit basic) hotel stay thrown in.

But that's not a good thing for many use cases, like tight business travel or vacations where I'd rather not spend a vacation day traveling if unnecessary.

If you're leaving at (say) 8pm on Friday evening, an overnight train arriving Saturday morning is much more convenient than a plane landing at midnight; likewise for getting back in time for work on Monday morning. What's the use case where it doesn't fit?

I know someone who liked to take the night train for business travel the few times it was possible. Flying he had to get up at 4 am to catch a 6 am flight for a 9 am meeting. With the train he hopped on the evening before, enjoyed dinner and a drink or two in the restaurant, got a full nights sleep, woke up at 7, took a shower, ate breakfast and arrived at the meeting rested.

Admittedly it was very rarely that meeting locations and train schedules lined up so it wasn't like he did it often.

I always take the night trains when I travel in Europe, but it is infrequent enough that I am not going to be able to save them. This makes me sad as well.