Taking the train instead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the train instead
From todays London Daily Telegraph:
I have already made my stand. On the occasions I visit the UK I have to fly but now it is Bangkok to Amsterdam and I take the train from there to St Pancras, London. It adds about 2½ hours to the journey but what a wonderful and relaxing conclusion to an 11 hour flight. I have no complaints about my Asian airline of choice but, at just under 6 foot and 66 years old, I find that 34" seat pitch is simply not sufficient for a long journey. And I am no longer prepared to put myself through the shame and degradation of the 'passenger handling' process at Heathrow.
As for UK internal flights - a visit to relatives in Cornwall can be achieved much quicker and usually much less expensively than an airline - particularly Ryanair - by booking a reserved seat on the train.
Why fly when you can take the train?
Cost-cutting measures and ludicrous inefficiency have taken all the pleasure out of flying.
By Becky Pugh
Published: 5:00PM BST 07 Jul 2009
There was a time when I considered travelling by plane the last word in luxury. You arrived at the airport and handed over your luggage, tickets and passport to a coiffed and smiling airline representative. With her lacquered nails dancing across a keyboard, she printed you off a boarding pass and sent you on your merry way.
Then you'd go through to Departures, spend a fortune on glorious, oversized paperbacks and board the plane. Once in your seat, a bevy of attendants would cater for your every whim. They provided you with socks, eye-masks, blankets, pillows, earphones; you could have spent a weekend camping with all the equipment they laid on.
If your seat belt wasn't tight enough, they'd see to it. If you wanted a drink, they'd bring one. You could have what you pleased, and it came with a bag of roasted peanuts. The cheery cabin crew produced nattily packed meals as often as you could consume them. They were at your service at the click of a button, and their wares came free of charge.
OK, legroom was often a problem, even in the good old days, and the air con has always dried out your skin. But you were comfortable enough, and on balance the experience was a treat. Your holiday began at check-in.
Sadly, times have changed. Air travel is no longer a service; it is a challenge from start to finish. Fraught and faint with hunger having been fobbed off with a paltry, and costly, sandwich in place of lunch you arrive at your destination already dreading the journey back. Your holiday fund is drastically reduced because you've spent most of it on levies for which you were utterly unprepared. Machines, delays, hidden charges everything conspires against you.
The simple explanation for this misery is, of course, that the aviation industry is deep in crisis. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the world's major airlines saw combined losses of as much as £5.8bn last year. High fuel costs and low ticket sales are forcing companies to do all they can to keep profits up.
Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary seems to be the master of innovative ways to succeed. Earlier this year, he confessed that he is thinking of charging passengers £1 per trip to the loo. Safe in the knowledge that people are likely to wait until they arrive at the terminal instead, he also plans to cut down the number of conveniences on board from three to one to make room for extra bodies. Another of his clever ploys is to ban checked-in luggage. Soon, you will have to carry your bags all the way to your gate, and across the runway to the plane, yourself.
This week, O'Leary announced that he has been talking to US plane manufacturer Boeing about designing an aircraft with standing room. So now even seats are a luxury. And if chairs are dispensable, surely human beings are, too. Why have any staff on board at all? Vending machines could serve tiny £5 bottles of plonk and bland, nutritionally balanced crackers as efficiently as any person.
Only joking sort of. After all, it could become a reality if employees at British Airways go on strike, as around 2,000 are threatening to. Not surprisingly, they don't like the airline's plans to cut jobs and freeze pay. These new measures must be especially galling after the recent suggestion by BA chief executive, Willie Walsh, that staff consider working for free for a month all for the cause of the company's "fight for survival".
Yes, it is a distinct lack of personnel that accounts for many of the hold-ups integral to travelling by plane. You get held up at check-in because you are no longer allowed contact with a person and the computer invariably fails to recognise your booking. You get held up at security for failing to put your lip balm in a special bag, because there was nobody around to give you one. You get held up at baggage reclaim because suitcases simply cannot make it from aircraft to terminal without human intervention.
Last Saturday, holidaymakers faced an eight-hour delay to their Thomas Cook flight to Menorca because the airline couldn't drum up an engineer to look at a mechanical problem on the plane any sooner. In the end, a qualified passenger stepped into the breach.
Please, for the love of God, spare me such frustration. I'm lucky not to have to fly regularly for work, and I have no advice for those that do. In my world, flights are for holidays yet the pain they cause far outweighs the pleasure they yield. Call me feeble and unadventurous, but from now on you'll find me where possible on board the soothing, scenic and outmoded railway train.
Cost-cutting measures and ludicrous inefficiency have taken all the pleasure out of flying.
By Becky Pugh
Published: 5:00PM BST 07 Jul 2009
There was a time when I considered travelling by plane the last word in luxury. You arrived at the airport and handed over your luggage, tickets and passport to a coiffed and smiling airline representative. With her lacquered nails dancing across a keyboard, she printed you off a boarding pass and sent you on your merry way.
Then you'd go through to Departures, spend a fortune on glorious, oversized paperbacks and board the plane. Once in your seat, a bevy of attendants would cater for your every whim. They provided you with socks, eye-masks, blankets, pillows, earphones; you could have spent a weekend camping with all the equipment they laid on.
If your seat belt wasn't tight enough, they'd see to it. If you wanted a drink, they'd bring one. You could have what you pleased, and it came with a bag of roasted peanuts. The cheery cabin crew produced nattily packed meals as often as you could consume them. They were at your service at the click of a button, and their wares came free of charge.
OK, legroom was often a problem, even in the good old days, and the air con has always dried out your skin. But you were comfortable enough, and on balance the experience was a treat. Your holiday began at check-in.
Sadly, times have changed. Air travel is no longer a service; it is a challenge from start to finish. Fraught and faint with hunger having been fobbed off with a paltry, and costly, sandwich in place of lunch you arrive at your destination already dreading the journey back. Your holiday fund is drastically reduced because you've spent most of it on levies for which you were utterly unprepared. Machines, delays, hidden charges everything conspires against you.
The simple explanation for this misery is, of course, that the aviation industry is deep in crisis. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the world's major airlines saw combined losses of as much as £5.8bn last year. High fuel costs and low ticket sales are forcing companies to do all they can to keep profits up.
Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary seems to be the master of innovative ways to succeed. Earlier this year, he confessed that he is thinking of charging passengers £1 per trip to the loo. Safe in the knowledge that people are likely to wait until they arrive at the terminal instead, he also plans to cut down the number of conveniences on board from three to one to make room for extra bodies. Another of his clever ploys is to ban checked-in luggage. Soon, you will have to carry your bags all the way to your gate, and across the runway to the plane, yourself.
This week, O'Leary announced that he has been talking to US plane manufacturer Boeing about designing an aircraft with standing room. So now even seats are a luxury. And if chairs are dispensable, surely human beings are, too. Why have any staff on board at all? Vending machines could serve tiny £5 bottles of plonk and bland, nutritionally balanced crackers as efficiently as any person.
Only joking sort of. After all, it could become a reality if employees at British Airways go on strike, as around 2,000 are threatening to. Not surprisingly, they don't like the airline's plans to cut jobs and freeze pay. These new measures must be especially galling after the recent suggestion by BA chief executive, Willie Walsh, that staff consider working for free for a month all for the cause of the company's "fight for survival".
Yes, it is a distinct lack of personnel that accounts for many of the hold-ups integral to travelling by plane. You get held up at check-in because you are no longer allowed contact with a person and the computer invariably fails to recognise your booking. You get held up at security for failing to put your lip balm in a special bag, because there was nobody around to give you one. You get held up at baggage reclaim because suitcases simply cannot make it from aircraft to terminal without human intervention.
Last Saturday, holidaymakers faced an eight-hour delay to their Thomas Cook flight to Menorca because the airline couldn't drum up an engineer to look at a mechanical problem on the plane any sooner. In the end, a qualified passenger stepped into the breach.
Please, for the love of God, spare me such frustration. I'm lucky not to have to fly regularly for work, and I have no advice for those that do. In my world, flights are for holidays yet the pain they cause far outweighs the pleasure they yield. Call me feeble and unadventurous, but from now on you'll find me where possible on board the soothing, scenic and outmoded railway train.
As for UK internal flights - a visit to relatives in Cornwall can be achieved much quicker and usually much less expensively than an airline - particularly Ryanair - by booking a reserved seat on the train.
Last edited by Xeque; 8th Jul 2009 at 05:09.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xeque
There are obviously other reasons for you to fly from BKK to AMS then on by rail to London.
To me it makes no sense at all to fly 11 hours then opt to continue your journey for another two and a half hours (and the rest) by train when another 45 minutes on board an aircraft, which you clearly state that you have no complaints with, gets you closer to your final destination.
To me it makes no sense at all to fly 11 hours then opt to continue your journey for another two and a half hours (and the rest) by train when another 45 minutes on board an aircraft, which you clearly state that you have no complaints with, gets you closer to your final destination.
Xeque....to your last point, indeed so. I am taking the train from Reading to Penzance next month, price booked in advance with seat reservation £37 First Class! - not bad for a Saturday in August.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really understand this thread.
The reason air travel is so crap for the man in the street is that they are paying a pittance for it. The article fails to make the connection between this and "the airline industry is in deep crisis."
You pays yer money and takes your choice.
Remember, paying £400 to cross the Atlantic 20 years ago was a hell of a lot more expensive than paying £300 to cross it today.
The price of air travel has fallen dramatically but so has the quality (it's debatable whether it was as good as people remember it anyway, but that's another thread).
Personally, I find spending a little bit more money in order to gain status (frequent flier) on an airline is worth it. For example, on BA, if you get a Silver card you can
- allocate a seat before everyone else - I always manage to get the first row of Economy if travelling in that
- use Fast Track security - bit of a lottery at T5 sometimes, but most of the time it's a great benefit
- use the lounges at T5, free food, drink, free wi-fi.
- Board the aircraft early (again variable at T5).
I suppose if you want to go back to late 1980s, early 1990s standards of service, you'll have to start paying (inflation adjusted) fares from the same time.
The reason air travel is so crap for the man in the street is that they are paying a pittance for it. The article fails to make the connection between this and "the airline industry is in deep crisis."
You pays yer money and takes your choice.
Once in your seat, a bevy of attendants would cater for your every whim. They provided you with socks, eye-masks, blankets, pillows, earphones; you could have spent a weekend camping with all the equipment they laid on.
If your seat belt wasn't tight enough, they'd see to it. If you wanted a drink, they'd bring one. You could have what you pleased, and it came with a bag of roasted peanuts. The cheery cabin crew produced nattily packed meals as often as you could consume them. They were at your service at the click of a button, and their wares came free of charge.
OK, legroom was often a problem, even in the good old days, and the air con has always dried out your skin. But you were comfortable enough, and on balance the experience was a treat. Your holiday began at check-in.
If your seat belt wasn't tight enough, they'd see to it. If you wanted a drink, they'd bring one. You could have what you pleased, and it came with a bag of roasted peanuts. The cheery cabin crew produced nattily packed meals as often as you could consume them. They were at your service at the click of a button, and their wares came free of charge.
OK, legroom was often a problem, even in the good old days, and the air con has always dried out your skin. But you were comfortable enough, and on balance the experience was a treat. Your holiday began at check-in.
The price of air travel has fallen dramatically but so has the quality (it's debatable whether it was as good as people remember it anyway, but that's another thread).
Personally, I find spending a little bit more money in order to gain status (frequent flier) on an airline is worth it. For example, on BA, if you get a Silver card you can
- allocate a seat before everyone else - I always manage to get the first row of Economy if travelling in that
- use Fast Track security - bit of a lottery at T5 sometimes, but most of the time it's a great benefit
- use the lounges at T5, free food, drink, free wi-fi.
- Board the aircraft early (again variable at T5).
I suppose if you want to go back to late 1980s, early 1990s standards of service, you'll have to start paying (inflation adjusted) fares from the same time.
There was a time when I considered travelling by plane the last word in luxury. You arrived at the airport and handed over your luggage, tickets and passport to a coiffed and smiling airline representative.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline industry is no different to any other. They have continually reduced the prices for a service and have done that by making more use of technology, cutting staff numbers etc. In reality like everyone else they have cut the quality.
The customer in the meantime complains about the cut in quality, but at the same time wants the lowest fare. You can't have both.
Mind you ironically as I was discussing with my brother the other day nowdays you can check-in online but when you get to the airport you discover you shouldn't have bnothered as the queue for check-in is shorter and moving faster than the baggage drop line!
The customer in the meantime complains about the cut in quality, but at the same time wants the lowest fare. You can't have both.
Mind you ironically as I was discussing with my brother the other day nowdays you can check-in online but when you get to the airport you discover you shouldn't have bnothered as the queue for check-in is shorter and moving faster than the baggage drop line!
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Or, to put it another way, when you fly, you pay for what you get.
When you take the train, the taxpayer is paying for what you get.
When you take the train, the taxpayer is paying for what you get.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me feeble and unadventurous, but from now on you'll find me where possible on board the soothing, scenic and outmoded railway train.
If I want to go and visit friends in Leeds for the weekend I usually fly from Plymouth, the times work perfectly, I get picked up by friends as they leave work. Example booking for a weekend in August, up Friday and back Sunday:
Air Southwest (via Bristol)
Depart Plymouth:16:00
Arrive Leeds: 18:10
Depart Leeds: 19:10
Arrive Plymouth: 21:15
Journey time approx 2 hrs, total cost: £160
Cross Country Trains
Depart Plymouth: 12:21
Arrive Leeds: 18:04
Depart Leeds: 16:00
Arrive Plymouth: 21:52
Journey time approx 5hrs 45mins, total cost: £120 - booked in advance
Although it's an extra £40 (I appreciate this is a significant amount to some people) I'd rather fly. Spend an extra 6/7 hours in Leeds and not face the prospect of standing for 5 hours on the way home! My experience of seat reservations:
There are a number of journeys I do take by train, mainly because they're significantly cheaper and I don't mind the extra time it takes. However, on certain routes the plane will always win hands down for me!
Crewmeal said:
Actually, I looked and for the day in question LGW-NQY with BE could be had for about 30 quid all in - which seems quite good (for me, not BE, would have expected yields to be a bit higher on an August Saturday!)
But I live near Reading and where I am going to in Kernow is near Penzance (ie, quite a way from NQY) so the train just made more sense. Door-to-door times would be not too different I suspect.
The Standard Class Fare was £27, by the way, I thought the extra tenner for the comfort of First Class was well worth it.
And what would the fare be using a LCC to NQY be I wonder?
But I live near Reading and where I am going to in Kernow is near Penzance (ie, quite a way from NQY) so the train just made more sense. Door-to-door times would be not too different I suspect.
The Standard Class Fare was £27, by the way, I thought the extra tenner for the comfort of First Class was well worth it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
Thanks for responses.
My rationale:
Take the trip from London to Cornwall. To make it easy I am going to count 'London' as a departure point from any mainline station. I am also going to take Truro as my destination.
By plane from Stansted
Liverpool Street station to Stansted (Stansted Express) - 45 minutes
Check-in, security clearance, boarding - 60 minutes
Flight time to Newquay (block to block) - 80 minutes
Baggage claim at Newquay - 20 minutes
Taxi to Truro (cost £35 the last time I did it) - 40 minutes
TOTAL TIME: - 4 hours 5 minutes
The time is about the same for Air Southwest out of Gatwick. I know they land at Plymouth but Gatwick is closer to the West Country so the additional time gets canceled out.
By train from Paddington
The train from Paddington to Truro takes 4 hours 25 minutes. (You can easily loose that extra 20 minutes in a delayed pushback or take-off queue at Stansted). Here I will also amend my original statement that it is 'much quicker' - it isn't but not by a big margin.
I'm not really worried about the fares. With a bit of forward planning you can get to within £5-£10 or even better than the best fare that MOL can come up with. Anyway, I am more interested in the comfort and lack of hassle.
You might like to do some comparisons with a journey from London to (say) Glasgow.
With regard to my trips from Bangkok to London (now much reduced since I retired); I would love to continue going through Heathrow but the way the airport is operated now makes the experience so awful that I am very happy to use Schiphol instead where the basics of politeness, real passenger service and operating efficiency come naturally.
The flight time difference between BKK/LHR and BKK/AMS is 30 minutes. The Thales train from Schiphol to Brussels and the Eurosatar from there to London St Pancras is 4 ½ hours. Ok, so that looks like 4 hours added but Schiphol immigration and baggage pickup is streets ahead of Heathrow in terms of speed and efficiency. The cross-over time between trains at Brussels is a couple of minutes and the Eurostar takes me right into London. I do not have to spend an additional 60 minutes in a train, bus or taxi to get there from the airport.
Again, very competitive train fares can be found if you book in advance so the difference in cost is marginal.
What I really love about the train from Schiphol is that I can really relax and unwind after the flight. I can stretch my legs, walk around, get a really good meal at a proper table and enjoy the view through the windows.
Thanks for responses.
My rationale:
Take the trip from London to Cornwall. To make it easy I am going to count 'London' as a departure point from any mainline station. I am also going to take Truro as my destination.
By plane from Stansted
Liverpool Street station to Stansted (Stansted Express) - 45 minutes
Check-in, security clearance, boarding - 60 minutes
Flight time to Newquay (block to block) - 80 minutes
Baggage claim at Newquay - 20 minutes
Taxi to Truro (cost £35 the last time I did it) - 40 minutes
TOTAL TIME: - 4 hours 5 minutes
The time is about the same for Air Southwest out of Gatwick. I know they land at Plymouth but Gatwick is closer to the West Country so the additional time gets canceled out.
By train from Paddington
The train from Paddington to Truro takes 4 hours 25 minutes. (You can easily loose that extra 20 minutes in a delayed pushback or take-off queue at Stansted). Here I will also amend my original statement that it is 'much quicker' - it isn't but not by a big margin.
I'm not really worried about the fares. With a bit of forward planning you can get to within £5-£10 or even better than the best fare that MOL can come up with. Anyway, I am more interested in the comfort and lack of hassle.
You might like to do some comparisons with a journey from London to (say) Glasgow.
With regard to my trips from Bangkok to London (now much reduced since I retired); I would love to continue going through Heathrow but the way the airport is operated now makes the experience so awful that I am very happy to use Schiphol instead where the basics of politeness, real passenger service and operating efficiency come naturally.
The flight time difference between BKK/LHR and BKK/AMS is 30 minutes. The Thales train from Schiphol to Brussels and the Eurosatar from there to London St Pancras is 4 ½ hours. Ok, so that looks like 4 hours added but Schiphol immigration and baggage pickup is streets ahead of Heathrow in terms of speed and efficiency. The cross-over time between trains at Brussels is a couple of minutes and the Eurostar takes me right into London. I do not have to spend an additional 60 minutes in a train, bus or taxi to get there from the airport.
Again, very competitive train fares can be found if you book in advance so the difference in cost is marginal.
What I really love about the train from Schiphol is that I can really relax and unwind after the flight. I can stretch my legs, walk around, get a really good meal at a proper table and enjoy the view through the windows.
Last edited by Xeque; 9th Jul 2009 at 13:00.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rails versus wings
Regarding weekend rail journeys. Have you checked whether "engineering" work, (used to be called track maintenance) is being carried out. I know of a friend who did exactly what you did, and found that the line was closed between Tiverton Parkway and Plymouth. This entailed a 45 minute "transfer" from train to bus and a 2 and a half hour bus journey as it had to go to Exeter, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot, and Totnes to drop pax off.
And, as a previous poster also mentioned, the huge subsidies from government make it possible only.. No private company would consider, nor get the backing to run a railway purely as a private enterprise.
In addition...
The time comparison between London and Penzance is fine, if, of course you live in London. For someone like myself, I would have to get to Paddington or Reading first, adding at least an hour onto the journey not to mention the additional costs of tickets/petrol/ etc...
Unfortunately, successive governements, Dr Beeching, and of course, the unions have done for the railways ever being a realistic transport alternative in this country.
Oh, and don't get me started on how much more "green" high speed rail links are....
And, as a previous poster also mentioned, the huge subsidies from government make it possible only.. No private company would consider, nor get the backing to run a railway purely as a private enterprise.
In addition...
The time comparison between London and Penzance is fine, if, of course you live in London. For someone like myself, I would have to get to Paddington or Reading first, adding at least an hour onto the journey not to mention the additional costs of tickets/petrol/ etc...
Unfortunately, successive governements, Dr Beeching, and of course, the unions have done for the railways ever being a realistic transport alternative in this country.
Oh, and don't get me started on how much more "green" high speed rail links are....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have to go to the UK, generally I have no problems flying into it, as long as it's not one of the London airports involved. After all, once arrived, all that can happen is they throw me out of the airport for being a prick so no problems there 
However, when it comes to escap... err, leaving the country, I have to choose between a two to three hours flight for about £30.- or a six to nine hour train ride for about £300. Well, there is no question, the train wins hands down every time
However, when it comes to escap... err, leaving the country, I have to choose between a two to three hours flight for about £30.- or a six to nine hour train ride for about £300. Well, there is no question, the train wins hands down every time
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thinks it is down to what suits who. I would choose flying if the difference was competitive as I love to fly, if the train/car was a clear winner then I would choose on of those respective options.
However, saying that ALL airports have become a challenge and it is always a chore to fly is not always true.
He clearly hasn't flown SQ or got a BA black card!
However, saying that ALL airports have become a challenge and it is always a chore to fly is not always true.
He clearly hasn't flown SQ or got a BA black card!
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So, Xeque, if you're flying, you get to the airport 60 minutes before departure.
If you're taking the train you get to the station ... 0 minutes before departure.
That's a trick the railways have always pulled in making time comparisons. Eurostar omits to mention that there is a statutory - and enforced - 30-minute check in time.
If you're taking the train you get to the station ... 0 minutes before departure.
That's a trick the railways have always pulled in making time comparisons. Eurostar omits to mention that there is a statutory - and enforced - 30-minute check in time.
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right SSK.
Even on other rail services in the UK, doors close 1 minute before departure.
If you are unfortunate enough for your train to be on platforms 13 or 14 at Manchester Piccadilly it's a long walk, although with travelators, when working and a space they jokingly refer to as a lounge, with their "wait in lounge" message before you decend the stairs to these platforms to the scrum and hopefully board the correct train.
Even on other rail services in the UK, doors close 1 minute before departure.
If you are unfortunate enough for your train to be on platforms 13 or 14 at Manchester Piccadilly it's a long walk, although with travelators, when working and a space they jokingly refer to as a lounge, with their "wait in lounge" message before you decend the stairs to these platforms to the scrum and hopefully board the correct train.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSK
I said that the journey started from any mainline London station. The time started from the trains departure.
If you are connecting through Brussels you walk across the platform. I think there was a 5-6 minute wait before the Eurostar departed.
Going back to Thailand I checked in at St Pancras about 40 minutes before. I also left some extra time at Schiphol in case of delays.
If you are connecting through Brussels you walk across the platform. I think there was a 5-6 minute wait before the Eurostar departed.
Going back to Thailand I checked in at St Pancras about 40 minutes before. I also left some extra time at Schiphol in case of delays.
Last edited by Xeque; 10th Jul 2009 at 03:50.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: On the flightpath
Age: 61
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This train vs. plane debate is wearisome. The vast majority of journeys begin and end at either a home, a hotel or a workplace, not a city centre railway station or an airport.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are connecting through Brussels you walk across the platform... The cross-over time between trains at Brussels is a couple of minutes
Even though I also prefer rail travel to flying, the lengths you claim to go to to avoid flying into London sound extreme, to say the least.
Last edited by Michael SWS; 11th Jul 2009 at 19:37.
Seem to be a number of inaccuracies here.
There is no train from Amsterdam to London, and unlikely there will ever be. This is due to the over-zealous government security requirements (now where have we heard that before) on Eurostar which so inflates the cost of running a station with Eurostar services that they just can't justify expanding beyond the present London/Paris/Brussels setup.
If you go from Amsterdam via Brussels you have all the re-check in palaver onto a second non-integrated rail sevice at Brussels which requires you to turn up more than 30 minutes ahead - they just close the gates at this time. Eurostar service to Brussels has been a financial disappointment to them, so intervals before the next one if you miss it are now down to every 2-3 hours.
For those who speak about travel in Britain at peak weekends with seat reservations, you have presumably never experienced that when things get a bit disrupted the railway companies just say "no time to organise the reservation numbers, sit wherever there's a seat". Except there probably aren't any left by this time. Several hours standing ? Even the worst LCC doesn't do that.
If you get put off onto a bus (as mentioned above), don't expect to have a reserved seat on the train at the other end of the blockage.
All this stuff about quoting the railway timetable duration as the journey time. We don't expect an air journey door-to-door to take the aircraft block time, same is true for the railway. This only really applies to car travel.
Of course if you are going to Truro (on the main line, no airport) rail has an advantage. If you are going to Newquay (not on main line, has an airport) the reverse applies.
There is no train from Amsterdam to London, and unlikely there will ever be. This is due to the over-zealous government security requirements (now where have we heard that before) on Eurostar which so inflates the cost of running a station with Eurostar services that they just can't justify expanding beyond the present London/Paris/Brussels setup.
If you go from Amsterdam via Brussels you have all the re-check in palaver onto a second non-integrated rail sevice at Brussels which requires you to turn up more than 30 minutes ahead - they just close the gates at this time. Eurostar service to Brussels has been a financial disappointment to them, so intervals before the next one if you miss it are now down to every 2-3 hours.
For those who speak about travel in Britain at peak weekends with seat reservations, you have presumably never experienced that when things get a bit disrupted the railway companies just say "no time to organise the reservation numbers, sit wherever there's a seat". Except there probably aren't any left by this time. Several hours standing ? Even the worst LCC doesn't do that.
If you get put off onto a bus (as mentioned above), don't expect to have a reserved seat on the train at the other end of the blockage.
All this stuff about quoting the railway timetable duration as the journey time. We don't expect an air journey door-to-door to take the aircraft block time, same is true for the railway. This only really applies to car travel.
Of course if you are going to Truro (on the main line, no airport) rail has an advantage. If you are going to Newquay (not on main line, has an airport) the reverse applies.