
Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean - chestnut-tree
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32916197
======
protomyth
"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.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"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.

~~~
adevine
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.

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
ticksoft
Trains have the advantage of being in city centres too where light rail and
buses are concentrated.

------
leonhandreke
> 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.

~~~
sasvari
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.

------
switch007
"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.

~~~
bnegreve
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.

~~~
switch007
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.

~~~
david-given
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.

------
Scoundreller
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!)

~~~
EliRivers
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.

~~~
Scoundreller
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...](http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight-
connections/faqs#security)

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.

~~~
EliRivers
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.

[1] I think it was Geneva.

~~~
gpvos
Wow, that's almost Kafkaesque, but really neat.

------
saool
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.

------
justincormack
Well not joining Schengen is stupid, and easily fixed.

~~~
Chris_Newton
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
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

~~~
pjmlp
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.

~~~
gpvos
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.

------
UnoriginalGuy
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.

~~~
gpvos
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.

------
guard-of-terra
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.

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

~~~
guard-of-terra
There is rail connection between Azerbaijan and Ukraine and it crosses two
borders.

