
Can Eurostar Compete with Airlines on Speed and Price? - edward
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/02/can-this-european-high-speed-train-compete-with-airlines/553061/
======
bbx
I've done the London–Brussels–Amsterdam a few times already (last time this
month, next time in 2 months). It is definitely more expensive than flying,
but I can't take short haul flights, and I do like the convenience of the
train: 2 stops on the tube in London, 15 min tram ride in Amsterdam, and I'm
home.

The connection in Brussels is a bit annoying: you only have to change
platforms but you have to wait at least 30 min. Removing that connection is I
believe critical, as it will gradually save time over the next few years.

The Paris and London Eurostar terminals are nice. The Brussels one is a bit
dark and only for 2 platforms. The Lille is alright actually, and only for 1
platform. I'm not sure where they would put it in Amsterdam though (and that
might be the cause of the delay). The current Thalys to Brussels always uses
the same half platform, but it might be tricky to reserve it for a Eurostar
that only travels twice a day. Also, the Amsterdam station has expanded its
shopping centre, which leaves little space for a decently-sized Eurostar
terminal. I'm intrigued at where they're gonna put it! Maybe build an
extension on the water?

For the most part, the train is for me a better experience: less busy than a
plane, decent internet, better seats, which all means I can actually work on
my laptop. You simply pay a premium for this convenience.

I think both the plane and train markets serve different purposes: cheap but
cumbersome or expensive but comfortable.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
> decently-sized Eurostar terminal

I think not having a "decently-sized terminal" is a much better approach. If I
remember correctly (haven't taken a train across a non-Schengen border for a
long time now, but
[https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/18563](https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/18563)
seems to confirm), customs handling often happened on the train - the officers
board the train at the last stop of country 1, do their passport checking etc.
while the train was going to the first stop of country 2, and get off there.

Any move towards anything that would require a "terminal" as opposed to a
platform will (on in the case of the Eurostar, was) just be the first step in
making train travel as uncomfortable as air travel is today.

The Eurostar web site already mentions that you should be checking in 30
minutes in advance. I remember seeing the security checkpoint in London,
shaking my head, and hoping this would not spread to other train lines.

~~~
gsnedders
The Channel Tunnel is covered by the Sangatte Protocol (1991) and the
Additional Protocol to the Sangatte Protocol (2000), which together enforce
pre-boarding immigration controls. (For comparison, the Treaty of Le Touquet
introduced them for cross-Channel ferries in 2003.)

Ultimately British politics has driven all of this: it's much easier, legally,
to refuse someone without documentation at the UK border control in France (or
Belgium, or in the future Holland) than it is when they claim asylum upon
arrival in the UK.

------
Cynddl
I don't understand the article. They explain than going in and out of the
airport is burdersome, and that taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam
is a much better experience, except for the change in Brussels

A London to Amsterdam is currently 4 hours and 38 minutes (incl. a 47min
change in Brussels). With a propre planning between Eurostar and Thalys, the
route could be done in less than four hours.

Taking a flight, on the contrary, will likely be much longer if you include
the time to go to the airport, arrive 90 minutes in advance, and the time to
leave airport in Amsterdam. Eurostar seem to have a clear advantage here, with
prices often competitive, especially if you include Snap tickets.

~~~
lmm
For a day or weekend trip to Amsterdam without hold luggage, 60 or even 45
minutes in advance is plenty (whereas, contra the article, 30 minutes before a
Eurostar departure is _not_ enough in standard class), and Schiphol airport is
very organized and only a 20 minute train ride from central Amsterdam.

~~~
tluyben2
As I do very often, you can push that advance further. On London City flights,
like I did sunday to Rotterdam, walking in under 30m works fine. If you have
fasttrack and travel a lot (aka you know where to go in airports), for flights
within the EU 90 minutes make no sense at all. Besides cancellations (my
return flight to City was cancelled and moved to Heathrow which was a PITA)
and the co2 pollution, I definitely prefer planes most of the time. The idea
of a train sometimes appeals (even if it takes far more time): seeing the
landscape for instance.

------
softgrow
I'm wondering if a four hour (international) train trip can really compete
with air and that the inflexion point lies around the three and a half hour
mark. There is a series of nice graphics from JR East (Japan Railway East)
factsheet "Railway Business"
[http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03....](http://www.jreast.co.jp/investor/factsheet/pdf/factsheet_03.pdf)
(linked from
[http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html](http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/investor/factsheet/index.html))
that deals with this question directly of introducing a high speed rail
service to compete with domestic airlines. Basically if the trip is under 3
hours expect airline market share to drop to 25% or lower. The lone four hour
trip Tokyo to Hakodate, still only has 13% market share. Add on border
formalities to the planned London-Amsterdam four hours and you'll move past
the sweet spot and air will continue to dominate. To succeed the train will
need to be even faster and probably do border formalities on the train to get
nearer to 210 minutes.

------
lmm
Train-nerd response: "Can This European High-Speed Train..." with a picture of
the old-model Eurostars that weren't suitable for running to Amsterdam.
There's a gallery of what the new one looks like on
[https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-
new...](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/eurostar-e320-the-new-train-
redefines-fast/index.html) .

~~~
r00fus
Good catch - although as a non-train-nerd, I can hardly tell the difference.
Do you know the key differences?

~~~
niftich
The new trainsets ("Eurostar e320") are built by Siemens as the 'Velaro e320'.
They are factory-equipped with ERTMS equipment (in-cab signalling, sensors,
etc), and unlike the Alstom-built predecessors, support both the Germanic 15
kV 16.7 Hz AC electrification, and 1500 V DC used in the Netherlands.

------
nrki
In my experience, it definitely can't compete on price.

London to Paris by Eurostar are routinely advertised as "from £29", but are
usually £300+ return for a weekend.

Whereas flights are often sub-£100.

Eurostar has no competition except the airlines. Businesses will fork out for
the tickets as you can't beat the time savings on the Paris route.

It will be interesting when Deutsche Bahn start using the line.

~~~
ghaff
In the US, Acela is more competitive with air travel between its major stops.
But it's definitely priced for business travel. It's about 2x the price of the
regular regional train but is usually less than an hour faster and, while the
cars are nicer, they aren't _that_ much nicer. When I'm traveling on my own
dime, I usually find it hard to justify spending $100 to save an hour or less.

~~~
ecspike
I generally trend towards flights because US trains are pre-emptible by
commercial traffic. My experience has been delays are de jure versus the
exception.

~~~
leeter
Legally it's supposed to be the other way around, but not all railroads give
way. Many just take the fine that Amtrak levies on them and shrug.

~~~
jcranmer
The way it works is that the freight railroads are supposed to clear a slot
for Amtrak's timetable. If Amtrak misses that slot, then the freight trains
get priority. The end result is that trains are either on time or
substantially delayed (6+ hrs) with no "slightly" late performance.

------
m_fayer
> a succession of endless, snaking queues where passengers are laboriously
> urged forward like some indigestible, resented lump of food in a small
> intestine.

I always appreciate it when journalists choose to add some verve to their
prose.

~~~
cm2187
The passport and security at Gare du Nord in Paris very much looks like that.
I don't think eurostar has that much of an edge over airports in term of
annoying passengers with queues and pointless rules.

~~~
ghaff
Breezed right through Gare du Nord last Saturday. But we actually got to the
train station about as early as we would have for a flight because we noted
things were such a backed up mess when we arrived a few days prior.

------
stevesimmons
I travel London-Amsterdam once or twice a month. I don't agree with the
article's assumption that Eurostar from St Pancras will beat flying, except
perhaps for people whose starting point in London is close to St Pancras.

As I see it, once the twice-daily London-Amsterdam Eurostar service starts in
April:

\- To the 3h41 train travel time, allow at least an hour to get through the
London Eurostar bag/passport checks. On a good day it can be 20 minutes but
you have to plan for the worst case of an hour. Then once you are departure-
side, the cafes have massive queues and there is a scramble for seats.

\- Compare that with London City Airport, where getting airside usually takes
5-15 minutes, queues for cafes are short to non-existent, and there's more
seating where you can do useful work, etc.

\- Then Eurostar has just two departures a day. Great if those times suits
you. Not great otherwise. LCY has at least three airlines flying to Amsterdam
(BA, KLM, CityJet, maybe FlyBE), giving roughly hourly departure options.

\- In my particular case, I work at Canary Wharf. So if I fly back from
Amsterdam on a Monday morning, I am at my desk 20 minutes after the plane
touches down at LCY.

Anyway, in April my partner and I plan to try Eurostar for the London-
Amsterdam direction. We will continue to fly back Schiphol to LCY, to avoid
the change of trains in Brussels on the reverse trip.

------
williw
Eurostar is definitely convenient. Took from London to Paris and return a
couple of years ago. 2 hours from downtown to downtown. Much less time for
ground transportation or check-in or anything like that than taking a flight.
Personally prefer this than flying between London/Paris.

------
FearNotDaniel
I agree with the general point of the article: that getting in and out of most
London airport terminals is becoming hellish enough that trains would be a
preferable replacement up to 4-5hrs of journey time.

It doesn't have to be that way, though. And I'm not sure that would work for
Frankfurt, for example. With only hand luggage it is still possible to arrive
at Heathrow's T2 for Lufthansa within an hour of take-off time, and when
arriving you can be on the tube within 20 mins of landing. The lower-priced
Eurowings flights also use the same terminal. If all airports were as well run
as T2 the trains wouldn't get a look in.

------
usrusr
Trains any time, except for this one important exception: regional to hub
airport traffic. When you miss the connecting flight because of a delay on the
first leg, it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that the airline will take
care for their mistake, but when you miss a flight because of train delay,
tough luck.

I don't know how large the fraction of feeder passengers is relative to point
topoint on those flight, but those won't be switching to planes any time soon.
At least not without single ticket/single checkin dedicated airport train
connections.

~~~
Gibbon1
> but when you miss a flight because of train delay, tough luck.

Solution for that is to put the airline checkin at the train station and make
getting your from there to your destination the airlines problem.

Which brings up the issue that transportation networks are often hopelessly
Balkanized. At least in the US.

~~~
ghaff
They are everywhere. Unless travel is all on a single booking, if you miss a
train/plane/hotel/etc. because of a travel delay, it's no different than if
you just overslept. And it's not unreasonable. It's not really the hotel's
fault that you couldn't use your room because of some weather problem a
continent away. Travel insurance is probably one answer if you want to buffer
against some issues--though I doubt it makes sense in most cases.

~~~
usrusr
Travel insurance is no substitute for integrated service because it adds one
_more_ thing to worry about when the itinerary fails: "How do I solve this
problem" vs "How do I solve this problem in a way that will be covered".

------
Feniks
Considering you have to get to the airport, go through customs/security, fly,
go through customs/security again and get to your hotel I think Eurostar is
definitely a good alternative.

------
rosege
I used to do AMS <-> LON quite a bit a few years back. It was 5 hours with
eurostar door to door or about 3 for flying for me. So I only did eurostar
when I had the time and wanted to look out the window or had lots of luggage.
It was generally more expensive but deals could be found if booking enough in
advance.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I've done it a few times, it's long enough for me that I usually stay in
Brussels and get an early train out in the morning.

------
chunkiestbacon
I did Paris - London by Eurostar. The security and border control part is as
annoying as flying. Actually it’s even worse since they check all your
luggage. If you fly at least they only check handluggage. Ride was great
however.

~~~
chatmasta
They definitely check all your luggage when you fly. You just don’t see it
because you dropped your bags at the counter.

------
reacweb
In train, you spend less time in departure and arrival station, but more time
traveling. In general, you also lose less time to reach stations. If you
travel for business, you can work far more effectively in train.

------
alkonaut
First of all it will help if companies simply make it strict policy that train
should be preferred over flights when reasonable (I think this is the case
already in many companies).

Second, the more flying is taxed for emissions the more it will make the train
price attractive.

------
jeanmichelx
This fails to address that Stansted is far out of the city centre, while St
Pancras could hardly be better positioned

~~~
matt4077
What do you mean? THere's a complete paragraph on the topic:

> And as the number of flights have proliferated, short-hop flights from
> economy carriers increasingly depart from smaller airports that are at a
> greater distance from the city, lengthening journey times further—not to
> mention obliging passengers to rely on sketchy onward transit. Anyone that’s
> made the 40 minute rail trip out to London Stansted Airport, or touched down
> at Southend Airport to find the last of the evening trains to London has
> long gone will know exactly what I mean here.

