Trains to Germany, Holland and beyond...

[Jordy]

Just something I've been reading about recently, in a few years time they'll be high speed trains from London to the likes of Amsterdam, Cologne, Frankfurt and in the future even the likes of Barcelona, Geneva etc. Currently Eurostar is restricted to just Brussels and Paris.

Trains to Amsterdam and Frankfurt will take 3-4 hours but they'll still manage to compete with airlines. On a train for example, you get on at the city centre and get off at a city centre. When taking a flight you'll have to take a 30-60 minute journey out the city just to get to the airport, Gatwick or Heathrow for example. And of course flights soon add up once you add the 2 hour check-in time, the time for the flight and getting to/from the airport so infact trains will be equally quick. However with trains you also get comfort, you get to sit down in a comfortable seat for 3-4 hours often around a table where you can use a laptop with wifi. At an airport there's no chance of getting work done due to having to move around and cramped seats.

Just struck me as interesting weighing up the pros/cons of train vs air travel, and quite a lot of the time train travel is cheaper too as well as much more comfier and convenient.

Will anyone else consider taking trains to destinations in Europe in the future?

[Callum.]

Wouldn't mind it depending on price. Going Amsterdam in April for £70.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would never take a train to Europe, expensive no doubt and take far too long.

[Arron]

in a few years, we talking 12?

[Special]

possibly. do you know what year it will start

[Jordy]

I would never take a train to Europe, expensive no doubt and take far too long.

Not really, the point I'm trying to make is that in the future it will take roughly the same time as planes. Plus you get the benefits of being able to work and relax whilst on a train. They also seem pretty competitive too, Eurostar is generally cheaper than Air travel (and quicker).

possibly. do you know what year it will start

We're looking at 2012 and 2013 it seems.

[marriott0.01]

Yeah I've read about this in the past about other operators using High Speed 1 and the Channel Tunnel. I do think it's a good idea as prices would have to be cheaper because if they're going to be using the Channel Tunnel that means not only can other operators solely operate to say Frankfurt or Cologne or Barcelona, but they also have the option to compete with eachother and go to Paris etc. Which then means we'll have a price war between competitors and soon will be seeing rail travel into Europe being the cheapest. You can't really have as big of a price war flying into Europe because they have a lot more costs, such as fuel and taxes. For example a FlyBe flight from Kent International Airport to Manchester actually costs £0.00 however you have to pay for taxes which means the flight comes to just over £29.00 each way. A train from Kent to Manchester as an adult actually costs more than that, but that's because you have to change onto different operators and there's not a chance of price war when paying with different operators. I've travelled from Kent to Liverpool several times and it's taken me 5hours each way on a train, with changes, the longest leg of the journey being the one from London to Liverpool. So I'm used to sitting on a train for hours, and I do believe that Trains are designed for long distances. Trains you can easily move about in because they're comfortable. They can be longer than planes so you can fit more seats, and with the European trains I'm going to guess they're going to design sleeper trains which means you'll be able to actually sleep on the trains. However, I do hold reservations with the train network going into Europe because I believe until we have a good enough Interim network we shouldn't be planning on expanding our international network. In my opinion High Speed 2 needs to be built a lot quicker than their currently planning on building it. 2025 to build a High Speed rail network is a joke, and they need to make this more of a priority than building a new airport to take the strain of Heathrow etc... To be quite frank if they want to take the strain off Heathrow then people must understand that regional airports actually work out cheaper than flying from Heathrow. You can fly from Manchester Airport cheaper than you can fly from Heathrow Airport, not always, but very often. Therefore why not build a rail network that can get people outside of London and into Manchester within 1 hour 20mins, then people will be able to fly from Manchester, or even fly from East Midlands Airport, or Bradford/Leeds Airport. It's not hard to see the benefits of having a High Speed Network which serves our country first.

Another problem could be cited with the train stations they plan to use. St Pancras International is no where near big enough to cope with another load of trains from Europe. It's already got loads of platforms which are being used by SouthEastern, Eurostar, First CapitalConnect and East Midlands Trains, add Deutsche Bahn, Veolia, Renfe and Transmanche Metro, then you can see that it's about to get very crowded at St Pancras, which has only just reopened anyway. I don't know where they're going to find the room to expand St Pancras even further, or if they don't plan to expand where the hell they plan to put all these trains. Another problem is nearby Euston Station which the government cites should also be apart of St Pancras' plan and they should expand Euston to include a direct rail link with St Pancras, which mans realistically they could make it Euston International, which also means that we'd now have 3 stations practically underneath the same complex as Kings Cross and St Pancras International are. I would love to see how we overcome these obstacles but until then I don't see quite how it could work.

So yes, I would get a train into Europe, however moving to Liverpool before year end, which means my only connection to London is a 2 hour journey on a train from Lime Street to Euston then Euston to St Pancras, you can see journey times beginning to add up. That's why we desperately need the High Speed 2 rail link to shorten our journey times and to increase the use of trains over planes and cars.

[Jordy]

Yeah I've read about this in the past about other operators using High Speed 1 and the Channel Tunnel. I do think it's a good idea as prices would have to be cheaper because if they're going to be using the Channel Tunnel that means not only can other operators solely operate to say Frankfurt or Cologne or Barcelona, but they also have the option to compete with eachother and go to Paris etc. Which then means we'll have a price war between competitors and soon will be seeing rail travel into Europe being the cheapest. You can't really have as big of a price war flying into Europe because they have a lot more costs, such as fuel and taxes. For example a FlyBe flight from Kent International Airport to Manchester actually costs £0.00 however you have to pay for taxes which means the flight comes to just over £29.00 each way. A train from Kent to Manchester as an adult actually costs more than that, but that's because you have to change onto different operators and there's not a chance of price war when paying with different operators. I've travelled from Kent to Liverpool several times and it's taken me 5hours each way on a train, with changes, the longest leg of the journey being the one from London to Liverpool. So I'm used to sitting on a train for hours, and I do believe that Trains are designed for long distances. Trains you can easily move about in because they're comfortable. They can be longer than planes so you can fit more seats, and with the European trains I'm going to guess they're going to design sleeper trains which means you'll be able to actually sleep on the trains. However, I do hold reservations with the train network going into Europe because I believe until we have a good enough Interim network we shouldn't be planning on expanding our international network. In my opinion High Speed 2 needs to be built a lot quicker than their currently planning on building it. 2025 to build a High Speed rail network is a joke, and they need to make this more of a priority than building a new airport to take the strain of Heathrow etc... To be quite frank if they want to take the strain off Heathrow then people must understand that regional airports actually work out cheaper than flying from Heathrow. You can fly from Manchester Airport cheaper than you can fly from Heathrow Airport, not always, but very often. Therefore why not build a rail network that can get people outside of London and into Manchester within 1 hour 20mins, then people will be able to fly from Manchester, or even fly from East Midlands Airport, or Bradford/Leeds Airport. It's not hard to see the benefits of having a High Speed Network which serves our country first.

Another problem could be cited with the train stations they plan to use. St Pancras International is no where near big enough to cope with another load of trains from Europe. It's already got loads of platforms which are being used by SouthEastern, Eurostar, First CapitalConnect and East Midlands Trains, add Deutsche Bahn, Veolia, Renfe and Transmanche Metro, then you can see that it's about to get very crowded at St Pancras, which has only just reopened anyway. I don't know where they're going to find the room to expand St Pancras even further, or if they don't plan to expand where the hell they plan to put all these trains. Another problem is nearby Euston Station which the government cites should also be apart of St Pancras' plan and they should expand Euston to include a direct rail link with St Pancras, which mans realistically they could make it Euston International, which also means that we'd now have 3 stations practically underneath the same complex as Kings Cross and St Pancras International are. I would love to see how we overcome these obstacles but until then I don't see quite how it could work.

So yes, I would get a train into Europe, however moving to Liverpool before year end, which means my only connection to London is a 2 hour journey on a train from Lime Street to Euston then Euston to St Pancras, you can see journey times beginning to add up. That's why we desperately need the High Speed 2 rail link to shorten our journey times and to increase the use of trains over planes and cars.

Decent post you make some good points. From my understanding, Euston will be the terminus of High Speed 2 but trains continuing to the continent or Kent will avoid Euston and continue on to High Speed 1, stopping at Stratford for London instead. Euston will also get a big extension too I believe seeing as it's already at capacity (Much like the west coast mainline). I share your concerns with St Pancras but considering some trains might cut it out all together by going on High Speed 2 and the fact Eurostar trains can wait there for hours without moving it shouldn't be an issue yet. When it nears capacity, Eurostar trains will be able to get rid of passengers, then go to a nearby depot to be cleaned and return to pick up passengers so it shouldn't be too bad

I'm still mixed about High Speed 2 though if I'm honest, we are lacking a true high speed network but the West Coast mainline is pretty fast as it is. For the price of High Speed 2 you could electrify and speed up the Midland Mainline, Great Western Mainline, replace HSTs and up the West Coast Mainline to 140mph (ERMTS is required I believe?). It just seems too expensive considering how much could be done to improve the current network with that money. But I agree Heathrow needs connecting to the rail network and things need speeding up a bit to get people out of cars and planes and on to trains.

[marriott0.01]

Decent post you make some good points. From my understanding, Euston will be the terminus of High Speed 2 but trains continuing to the continent or Kent will avoid Euston and continue on to High Speed 1, stopping at Stratford for London instead. Euston will also get a big extension too I believe seeing as it's already at capacity (Much like the west coast mainline). I share your concerns with St Pancras but considering some trains might cut it out all together by going on High Speed 2 and the fact Eurostar trains can wait there for hours without moving it shouldn't be an issue yet. When it nears capacity, Eurostar trains will be able to get rid of passengers, then go to a nearby depot to be cleaned and return to pick up passengers so it shouldn't be too bad

I'm still mixed about High Speed 2 though if I'm honest, we are lacking a true high speed network but the West Coast mainline is pretty fast as it is. For the price of High Speed 2 you could electrify and speed up the Midland Mainline, Great Western Mainline, replace HSTs and up the West Coast Mainline to 140mph (ERMTS is required I believe?). It just seems too expensive considering how much could be done to improve the current network with that money. But I agree Heathrow needs connecting to the rail network and things need speeding up a bit to get people out of cars and planes and on to trains.

Well the Government have plans to link HS1 and HS2. Which means Euston and St Pancras are going to be linked in some way. I've been on the West Coast Mainline many times and oh believe me it's fast, but not fast enough. I know when I finally move to Liverpool I would much rather prefer to go to London in 1hour20mins than the current 2hours10mins. It means that the time to get to London would be the same as the time to get to Manchester. Which is pretty good tbh as it also means people will be able to live in places like Liverpool or Manchester and still do a lot of business in London and only take an hour and half out of their schedule. Also a lot of people will be more persuaded to use the rail link if it shows "considerably" increased speeds compared to cars. Atm yes it's quicker by train to Liverpool from London than it is by car, but only by 1-2hours. If it was 3 hours faster, people will be much more persuaded to just hop on the train, I know I would.

[Jordy]

Well the Government have plans to link HS1 and HS2. Which means Euston and St Pancras are going to be linked in some way. I've been on the West Coast Mainline many times and oh believe me it's fast, but not fast enough. I know when I finally move to Liverpool I would much rather prefer to go to London in 1hour20mins than the current 2hours10mins. It means that the time to get to London would be the same as the time to get to Manchester. Which is pretty good tbh as it also means people will be able to live in places like Liverpool or Manchester and still do a lot of business in London and only take an hour and half out of their schedule. Also a lot of people will be more persuaded to use the rail link if it shows "considerably" increased speeds compared to cars. Atm yes it's quicker by train to Liverpool from London than it is by car, but only by 1-2hours. If it was 3 hours faster, people will be much more persuaded to just hop on the train, I know I would.

2 Hours 10 mins atm is pretty good, I live near Nottingham and it takes me almost that. Come to think of it though, linking the three most major cities in the UK is probably going to benefit more people than my idea would (Even if it benefits more regions, it won't add up to the population of London/Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool). Lots of investment is vital across the network that's for sure, whatever benefits the most people is best I suppose

Euston and St Pancras won't need to be linked any more than they currently are. They're a 10 minute walk away from each other and also connected by the London Underground. Birmingham to Paris for instance would bypass both the Euston & St Pancras terminus and stop at Stratford instead.