Trains vs Planes and Automobiles

On 04/03/2012 3:15 PM, bill wrote:

When I went back with my wife two years later we again booked a hotel in
Copenhagen for a few days and one in Paris for the last few days. The
rest of the time we wandered aimlessly. For instance, we stopped to
visit Vimy Ridge in France, but it was cold and rainy, so we hopped in
the car and drove until we found the sun. That was in Verdun. We had a
great time, but I know lots of people who would never dream of doing
that.

How often did you end up sleeping in your car?

Or in 'The Cockroach Inn'...

I have spent a few nights sleeping on the benches in railway station
waiting rooms, but not since I was 30...

The odd thing is that some of the most disappointing hotels we had were
those that we had booked in advance. One of them was in Copenhagen, and
I had a hard time finding another place.

One year when travelling around Nova Scotia we had a hard time finding
hotels. Luckily, we had an early start and started looking for a hotel
early, because we went a long way before we found one. Even camping
spots can be hard to find.

Nova Scotia in Europe...

"Dave Smith" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
. ..

On 04/03/2012 3:15 PM, bill wrote:

When I went back with my wife two years later we again booked a hotel in
Copenhagen for a few days and one in Paris for the last few days. The
rest of the time we wandered aimlessly. For instance, we stopped to
visit Vimy Ridge in France, but it was cold and rainy, so we hopped in
the car and drove until we found the sun. That was in Verdun. We had a
great time, but I know lots of people who would never dream of doing
that.

How often did you end up sleeping in your car?

Or in 'The Cockroach Inn'...

I have spent a few nights sleeping on the benches in railway station
waiting rooms, but not since I was 30...

The odd thing is that some of the most disappointing hotels we had were
those that we had booked in advance. One of them was in Copenhagen, and
I had a hard time finding another place.

One year when travelling around Nova Scotia we had a hard time finding
hotels. Luckily, we had an early start and started looking for a hotel
early, because we went a long way before we found one. Even camping
spots can be hard to find.

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:

majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train.

Well, when I was a kid, my father liked vacations on the beach and so we
all went there. By train, and dispatching our luggage in advance. He did
not want to have a car (and I have inherited such attitude ... not the
one towards beach vacations though, I like mountains and cities).

Anyhow I stated that if a family has already a car, and wants to make a
"residential" holiday in a place with poor rail connection and carrying
lots of luggage, they will probably go by car. But families with
children are not likely to be the dominant form of tourists among us
europeans.

Quite apart from which, how many kids would enjoy the prospect of
traveling round from one city to another by train when they could be
on the beach?

Sincerely I have never understood how modern children (who for safety
reasons are forced to stay fastened in special seats on cars until the
age of 12 or thereabout) may enjoy travel by car, when travel by train
offers much more possibility to move around while travelling !

But it is also a matter of habits acquired by education. I was
interested in visiting places already when I was 8 or 10. And I liked
walking.

If now kids are carried around in prams on the underground until they
are 4 or 5, and only go in places reachable by car with no walk, we
could only complain with their parents.

On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:

majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train.

Well, when I was a kid, my father liked vacations on the beach and so we
all went there. By train, and dispatching our luggage in advance. He did
not want to have a car (and I have inherited such attitude ... not the
one towards beach vacations though, I like mountains and cities).

Indeed, Italy is one of the countries where more people travel on
vacation by train compared to most other countries. Also, if you are
talking about the past, (I'm sure how old you are) then clearly there
were far fewer cars, and mass air travel only started in the 60s. So
therefore trains (or buses) were the only means of transport.

Anyhow I stated that if a family has already a car, and wants to make a
"residential" holiday in a place with poor rail connection and carrying
lots of luggage, they will probably go by car. But families with
children are not likely to be the dominant form of tourists among us
europeans.

Quite apart from which, how many kids would enjoy the prospect of
traveling round from one city to another by train when they could be
on the beach?

Sincerely I have never understood how modern children (who for safety
reasons are forced to stay fastened in special seats on cars until the
age of 12 or thereabout) may enjoy travel by car, when travel by train
offers much more possibility to move around while travelling !

But it is also a matter of habits acquired by education. I was
interested in visiting places already when I was 8 or 10. And I liked
walking.

If now kids are carried around in prams on the underground until they
are 4 or 5, and only go in places reachable by car with no walk, we
could only complain with their parents.

On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
But families with children are not likely to be the dominant form of
tourists among us europeans.

That's a very strange statement, why do you think that?

On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
if a family has already a car, and wants to make a "residential" holiday
in a place with poor rail connection and carrying lots of luggage, they
will probably go by car.

I think the luggage situation is the main reason for NOT traveling by
train. There seems to be a trend among air travellers at least to go on
vacation with gigantic suitcases packed to the maximum 23kg with things
that they absolutely must have with them while lying on the beach. And
of course the ones going on vacation by car can take even twice as much,
even filling a roof box if necessary. I guess it's all part of our 21st
century culture, this compulsion to drag round all the clothing and
cosmetics, the laptops, DVD players, cameras and chargers, books and
magazines that we feel we can't possibly live without for two weeks.

I sometimes come past Frankfurt airport by train and see people
struggling to get on and off the train with these vast suitcases- it's a
major feat of strength to get them off the platform into the carriage,
fight their way along the gangway looking for a seat, only to find that
there is nowhere to stow the cases. If just getting from the airport
terminal back home by train is a torture, just imagine if you actually
had to go anywhere real by train.

On 3/5/2012 6:40 AM, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:37:20 +0100, Tom wrote:

On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:

majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train.

Well, when I was a kid, my father liked vacations on the beach and so we
all went there. By train, and dispatching our luggage in advance. He did
not want to have a car (and I have inherited such attitude ... not the
one towards beach vacations though, I like mountains and cities).

Indeed, Italy is one of the countries where more people travel on
vacation by train compared to most other countries. Also, if you are
talking about the past, (I'm sure how old you are) then clearly there
were far fewer cars, and mass air travel only started in the 60s. So
therefore trains (or buses) were the only means of transport.

There are a large number of Italians who travel in rented camper vans.
I've seen car parks full of them in Brittany and in The Netherlands.

And tearing along narrow roads in the Highlands.

On 03/05/2012 12:40 PM, Martin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:37:20 +0100, Tom wrote:

On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:

majority prefers to go to the beach. And not by train.

Well, when I was a kid, my father liked vacations on the beach and so we
all went there. By train, and dispatching our luggage in advance. He did
not want to have a car (and I have inherited such attitude ... not the
one towards beach vacations though, I like mountains and cities).

Indeed, Italy is one of the countries where more people travel on
vacation by train compared to most other countries. Also, if you are
talking about the past, (I'm sure how old you are) then clearly there
were far fewer cars, and mass air travel only started in the 60s. So
therefore trains (or buses) were the only means of transport.

There are a large number of Italians who travel in rented camper vans.
I've seen car parks full of them in Brittany and in The Netherlands.

I've seen some gigantic ones last year on Sardinian camping sites. Like
these ones www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3nGxcLLDyM at 1:20, 1:58 for example.

Tom P wrote:
On 03/05/2012 11:10 AM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
if a family has already a car, and wants to make a "residential" holiday
in a place with poor rail connection and carrying lots of luggage, they
will probably go by car.

I think the luggage situation is the main reason for NOT traveling by
train. There seems to be a trend among air travellers at least to go on
vacation with gigantic suitcases packed to the maximum 23kg with things
that they absolutely must have with them while lying on the beach. And of
course the ones going on vacation by car can take even twice as much,
even filling a roof box if necessary. I guess it's all part of our 21st
century culture, this compulsion to drag round all the clothing and
cosmetics, the laptops, DVD players, cameras and chargers, books and
magazines that we feel we can't possibly live without for two weeks.

I sometimes come past Frankfurt airport by train and see people
struggling to get on and off the train with these vast suitcases- it's a
major feat of strength to get them off the platform into the carriage,
fight their way along the gangway looking for a seat, only to find that
there is nowhere to stow the cases. If just getting from the airport
terminal back home by train is a torture, just imagine if you actually
had to go anywhere real by train.

If I can't carry it on my back and shoulder and grab railings with both
hands, it doesn't go with me! I took a group(Elderhostel) tour once that
was going to involve spme train travel. People were warned in advance that
they would need to manage their own luggage, yet almost every one of the
others had huge trunk-sized suitcases they could NOT get on and off alone.
Our poor guide tried to help them, but he should not have had to. I can't
understand why people need so much for a mere two weeks. This was the
second half of my trip that year.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:55:45 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I think the luggage situation is the main reason for NOT traveling by
train. There seems to be a trend among air travellers at least to go on
vacation with gigantic suitcases packed to the maximum 23kg with things
that they absolutely must have with them while lying on the beach.

There are less and less people going on holiday by air.

Air travel is expensive these days and you go through three of the
circles of Hell to get on the aircraft.

Lots of people on aircraft, especially long haul aircraft, are on
business, and many of them are people who work in one location and have
their residence somewhere else.

So yes, they take a lot of luggage...

--
"Hopefully the fair wind will resume, or this may well take all day."

Admiral Collingwood on being becalmed under the guns of six French ships-
of-the-line at Trafalgar