Trains vs Planes and Automobiles

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:52:12 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

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.

That's why people book...

--
"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

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:
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?

Well, the natality rate is rather low in many European countries (Italy
being one of the "oldest"), and families with = 2 children are rare.

Families with lots of children might not be able to afford long
vacations, especially of the travel type (I'm thinking of "tourists" as
people who "tour" around, not stantial holidaymakers). They might rent a
flat on some beach or mountain resort, go there by car loaded with lots
of paraphernalia, and stay there for the season.

Real tourists (travelling around, visiting art cities, hiking in the
mountains, going to "agriturismi" [accomodation in farms usually with
good food], etc.) can be singles (young or old), couples (young or old),
or families with one teenager child.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Martin wrote:

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.

If it was true.

Try to go on Milan underground or low-floor trams nowadays.

When I was a young child (3 to 5), I spent late evenings returning home
from my aunt's on a tram, sleeping on my mother's lap (and then getting
waken up to do the final walk to home). And I *walked* 2+2 km to school.

Nowadays there are loads of prams with children completely capable to
walk, taking up lots of space on metro and trams. Same rate of young
italian mothers and young extracomunitarian (latin american, arab or
chinese) mothers (the latter more visible because of higher natality
rate).

If they aren't carried by pram, they are transported by car (e.g. to go
to school). They usually do not walk.

When I go on summer in the mountains, the local tourist office arranges
some walks for tourists. It is not a very high altitude place, so the
kind of tourists may be middle age adults, or grandmothers or mums with
children. You rarely find those children taking part to the walks
(though they may take part to football or tennis activities). There are
of course exceptions (local children like the nephews of the guide, or
the few children of walking parents).

5.3.2012 13:55, Tom P kirjoitti: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.

For me train travelling has never been a torture. Sometimes a nuisance
and bit tiresome when there has not been one seat vacant. For a truly
long distance journey seat reservation is most likely compulsory anyway.
Luggage has never been a problem either (I just toss the rucksack on the
rack above the seat I occupy). Trains are smooth going, they are almost
immune to traffic jams. They have big windows to have a good vision out.
And you don't have to drive yourself (most of the time I like driving
myself).

I believe we have already caught the idea that you don't like train
travelling yourself - least of all you are a train enthusiast.

The example you give above says nothing about downsides of train
travelling but excessive (in you opinion anyway) load of luggage you
have seen some train travellers to carry around.

5.3.2012 16:44, bill kirjoitti:
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.

Ups! When air travelling has been cheaper? In 1980's I was eligible to
buy IATA "youth tickets" which usually cost something like 30% the fare
the senior passengers for the same flight had paid. Now everyone can fly
much cheaper that I did 25-30 years ago. This is particularly true
inside Europe where skies have been free for true competition (and not a
battle field for those national "flag" carriers) for 20 years now. More
over, one way tickets were even more absurdly priced. International and
sometimes domestic flights in South America and Africa are truly
expensive whereas in Europe, North America and Asia they are very
reasonable in thousands of routes.

About a month ago I bought a return ticket HEL-FRA-SIN for 492.27€.
I don't find the fare exactly expensive. HEL-SIN (only 11 hours
instead of 16) had cost reasonably 650€.

On 3/5/2012 10:31 AM, Markku Grönroos wrote:
5.3.2012 13:55, Tom P kirjoitti: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.

For me train travelling has never been a torture. Sometimes a nuisance
and bit tiresome when there has not been one seat vacant. For a truly
long distance journey seat reservation is most likely compulsory anyway.
Luggage has never been a problem either (I just toss the rucksack on the
rack above the seat I occupy). Trains are smooth going, they are almost
immune to traffic jams. They have big windows to have a good vision out.
And you don't have to drive yourself (most of the time I like driving
myself).

I believe we have already caught the idea that you don't like train
travelling yourself - least of all you are a train enthusiast.

The example you give above says nothing about downsides of train
travelling but excessive (in you opinion anyway) load of luggage you
have seen some train travellers to carry around.

Time was when I enjoyed a decent meal on a train journey but restaurant
cars with reasonable food are not as common now.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:30:43 +0100, Runge 132 wrote:

Nova Scotia in Europe...

France still claims Saint Pierre and Miquelon just a few
miles away.

"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 03/05/2012 04:15 PM, Giovanni Drogo wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Tom P wrote:
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?

Well, the natality rate is rather low in many European countries (Italy
being one of the "oldest"), and families with = 2 children are rare.

Families with lots of children might not be able to afford long
vacations, especially of the travel type (I'm thinking of "tourists" as
people who "tour" around, not stantial holidaymakers). They might rent a
flat on some beach or mountain resort, go there by car loaded with lots
of paraphernalia, and stay there for the season.

Real tourists (travelling around, visiting art cities, hiking in the
mountains, going to "agriturismi" [accomodation in farms usually with
good food], etc.) can be singles (young or old), couples (young or old),
or families with one teenager child.

Ok - a question of what one understands by "tourist". The OP was
referring to holidays. Maybe he assumed that holiday makers are all
tourists of the kind that you mean.

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:54:25 +0200, Markku Grönroos wrote:

5.3.2012 16:44, bill kirjoitti:
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.

Ups! When air travelling has been cheaper? In 1980's I was eligible to
buy IATA "youth tickets" which usually cost something like 30% the fare
the senior passengers for the same flight had paid. Now everyone can fly
much cheaper that I did 25-30 years ago. This is particularly true
inside Europe where skies have been free for true competition (and not a
battle field for those national "flag" carriers) for 20 years now. More
over, one way tickets were even more absurdly priced. International and
sometimes domestic flights in South America and Africa are truly
expensive whereas in Europe, North America and Asia they are very
reasonable in thousands of routes.

About a month ago I bought a return ticket HEL-FRA-SIN for 492.27€.
I don't find the fare exactly expensive. HEL-SIN (only 11 hours
instead of 16) had cost reasonably 650€.

My personal experience is that the cost of air travel for long distances
has just about doubled in the past five years.

Mainly because of huge increases in taxes.

I used to be able to fly to New York for a couple of hundred pounds, now
it's four hundred.

I used to fly to Mumbai for about £330, now it's at least £550.

Way over inflation.

--
"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

5.3.2012 18:42, bill kirjoittinably 650€.

My personal experience is that the cost of air travel for long distances
has just about doubled in the past five years.

Mainly because of huge increases in taxes.

I used to be able to fly to New York for a couple of hundred pounds, now
it's four hundred.

I used to fly to Mumbai for about £330, now it's at least £550.

Way over inflation.

I don't share that experience. Naturally the fare structures to many
destinations are somewhat different between London and Helsinki. I don't
fly that often and I usually buy tickets months in advance when they are
in their cheapest. I also assume that air travelling won't be cheaper in
following years.