The tentative answer provides an interesting snapshot of just how much European travel has changed: 20 years ago, a train taking more than three hours would struggle to compete with an hour-long flight. Today, however, such as service is at a distinct advantage. It’s not necessarily the case that speed and comfort have necessarily skyrocketed for train travel (though there are indeed more fast routes now on offer). It’s because—especially for shorter distances—flying has become increasingly hellish and time-consuming. [...]
This certainly makes sense. Back in the 1990s, before Europe’s cheap flight boom, it was still possible to breeze into an airport an hour before your flight, clear security, and even stop for a coffee before making your way to the gate. Catch a plane from London to Amsterdam now and, even with online check-in, you’re cutting it close if you allow 90 minutes at the terminal. 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. [...]
It’s these delays that make downtown-to-downtown rail travel increasingly attractive for longer distances. Eurostar trains have security and passport checks too, of course, but you’re broadly safe arriving at the station 30 minutes before departure (45 during peak times) and as little as 10 minutes for the most expensive ticket class. Under these circumstances, anyone might prefer taking a direct train from London to Amsterdam and back.
No comments:
Post a Comment