European Rail Info

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

diesteldorf

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
365
I apologize if this doesn't quiote pertain to Amtrak, however, I am hoping for some assistance.

I am contemplating a trip to Cologne, Germany and would like to visit several regions of Germany and France (specifically, Normandy, France and the Schleswig Holstein region in Germany). Are there any websites that would be able to provide schedule and fair info for Europe and/or trains leaving Cologne, Germany?

Is it relatively affordable to travel Europe by rail compared to Amtrak?
 
I apologize if this doesn't quiote pertain to Amtrak, however, I am hoping for some assistance.
I am contemplating a trip to Cologne, Germany and would like to visit several regions of Germany and France (specifically, Normandy, France and the Schleswig Holstein region in Germany). Are there any websites that would be able to provide schedule and fair info for Europe and/or trains leaving Cologne, Germany?

Is it relatively affordable to travel Europe by rail compared to Amtrak?

Here is Deutche Bahn Hafas scheduler, it shows schedule and pricing just fill in blanks.

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe...equest=yes&

to change languages see button at top right.
 
I just returned from Cologne - the Deutsche Bahn scheduler site is great. It's affordable in 2nd class - on weekends you can get a S.W. ticket, which is a one-day pass on regional trains for up to 5 people, for a total of 30 euros. mind you, that only works in Germany...

You might check the eurailpasses if you're planning on doing a lot of rail travel - www.eurail.com. You can get a selectpass for both countries for a specified period of time, and that includes unlimited rail travel.
 
Affordability has changed greatly since the arrival of the discount airlines in Europe. The strong Euro against the weak dollar has not helped at all either. On longer distance international travel, the trains are almost "expensive" compared to their flying competition. Nevertheless, on shorter passages, the train is still your best option since almost all stations are centrally located within city and town limits and do not require additional transportation to get to your destination. The German rail site is by far the best on the web for getting quotes and information. I traveled thousands of miles using this site as a resource several years ago.
 
Affordability has changed greatly since the arrival of the discount airlines in Europe. The strong Euro against the weak dollar has not helped at all either. On longer distance international travel, the trains are almost "expensive" compared to their flying competition. Nevertheless, on shorter passages, the train is still your best option since almost all stations are centrally located within city and town limits and do not require additional transportation to get to your destination. The German rail site is by far the best on the web for getting quotes and information. I traveled thousands of miles using this site as a resource several years ago.

I'd still say trains are generally the cheapest way around France, although the prices do go up and down considerably (like Amtrak's, but I think even more fluctuation). For schedule and reservations, go to

sncf-voyages.com, where this is a little British flag near the bottom left corner to change languages. The website will tell you what 'bucket', to use the American word, each ticket is priced at.

For Normandy, you will probably take a TGV from Paris Montparnasse to Rennes (it's a TGV all the way, even though only half of the line is an LGV) and then switch to a TER for wherever it is in particular you are going.
 
Also, go to www.raileurope.com and you can find almost any rail pass available.
I think Gyuri (sorry for spelling) will confirm but European railpasses are almost never the cheapest way to get around Europe (even by rail). This has changed in the last twenty years. I will wait for Gyuri to tell you more about it, if he reads this.
 
I've been using railpasses for many years in Europe, as recently as this past spring on a 4-week trip, and I always calculate the cost (comparing buying a ticket vs. using one rail day on the pass), and for all but the shortest trips, it's still MUCH cheaper to use a railpass than to buy point-to-point tickets, especially if you'd like to travel First Class (which actually means something on European trains!) - extra charges for reservations or supplements on "quality" trains (TGV, ICE, etc.) are minimal or even nonexistent (with the notable exception of international trains traveling directly to or from major cities in Spain - for that, take the TGV to Irun, then transfer to a RENFE train, day or night, and it will cost about 1/3 what the internationals would)...
 
I also agree that rail passes are the way to go. Especially in first class. First class is often less crowded and has nicer seating.

If you are traveling in one small area with mostly only 2nd class trains, than you might want to reconsider buying a first class rail pass. Scotland or Wales is about the only examples that I can think of where you might considered 2nd class passes.
 
I also agree that rail passes are the way to go. Especially in first class. First class is often less crowded and has nicer seating.
If you are traveling in one small area with mostly only 2nd class trains, than you might want to reconsider buying a first class rail pass. Scotland or Wales is about the only examples that I can think of where you might considered 2nd class passes.
Well, I'll take your word for this.

I haven't bothered comparing the prices to point-to-point tickets recently but when I did last a couple years, it (travelling mostly in Sweden and France, sometimes between the two) was much cheaper to buy point-to-point tickets a bit in advance -- true, this does cut down on your flexibility a bit. But perhaps I didn't know where to look for railpasses or my case is an exception.

I don't think the difference between first and second class on a TER in France is really noticeable to be honest; I'd even say it's less than Amtrak's. Almost the same applies Corails. I'm trying to recall the interior of first-class on a TGV but am drawing a blank. Same goes for X2000 in Sweden - but in both of these the second-class is quite nice anyway. .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was aboard one of the brand newly-renovated TGVs this past March...interior design by Christian Lacroix in shades of aubergine and lime, 2/1 seating, assymetrical headrest (which works remarkably well), as well as the aforementioned quiet and larger seating area compared with 2nd class...
 
Rail passes can be quite affordable but only if it fits in your itinerary. Many of the passes work for a certain cluster of countries. Others are just for one country. It all depends on where you are going and it can get very confusing. My recent journey took me from London-Paris-Munich-Mittenwald-Salzburg-Prague-Warsaw-Vilnius-Warsaw-Vienna-Florence-Paris-London. Trust me on this, no pass would accommodate these travels. So point-to-point was the way I went. Frankly, I much enjoyed the older trains with the individual compartments than 2nd class on TGV or German ICE (which were always packed to the gills with little storage). Sure they moved like glass at incredible speeds but the others always got us there on time in great "old world" surroundings and you could even open the windows as you snaked thru the mountains. I would encourage anyone considering taking the Eurostar to purchase tickets on line before you get there. The cheapest tickets are restricted like airlines, but you don't want to be caught at the last minute paying $300 for a one way fare.
 
Now that people are talking about European rail, I wonder if anyone who knows anything about the former British Rail could tell us something about how the current system of nationally-owned tracks with privately-run trains is working out. It's been at least five years since this system is in place, right? Any lessons that could be learned for the US here, since people often talk of an analogous system here on the Northeast Corridor. I'm also curious how National Rail decides who gets what trains: are slots bid on, like airport gates? Thanks.
 
I will be sampling british rail in january with my father. We will ride from London to Glasgow on the GNER. Then we will ride around Scotland on Scotrail, and then back to London on Virgin Trains. This should give an overview, and I could compare to my experiences back in 1988.

Steve
 
Now that people are talking about European rail, I wonder if anyone who knows anything about the former British Rail could tell us something about how the current system of nationally-owned tracks with privately-run trains is working out. It's been at least five years since this system is in place, right? Any lessons that could be learned for the US here, since people often talk of an analogous system here on the Northeast Corridor. I'm also curious how National Rail decides who gets what trains: are slots bid on, like airport gates? Thanks.
I work with several British guys, and the general thought is that it has proven to be in general a bad idea. There are more trains, but fares tend to be high and the government is actually paying more into the system than they did when it was a unified system. As to having a separate track company: That has proven to be a disaster. It was privatized and then taken back. The institutional memory of the long term track guys is gone. Due to the longevity of track components and fairly good standards of work in the past, the chickens have not yet all come home to roost, but some of the recent events say more are getting there. A lot of good maintenance practices are no more, so more track related disasters are regarded as being on the way. A lot of junctions have been "simplified" to the point that any glitch results in major train delays. Much potential rail freight has been shoved off onto the roads because of difficulty in getting paths to run freight trains.

Essentially, the Northeast corridor is probably in the best condition of any section of railroad in the US due to Amtrak putting A LOT of money into it. Yes, it still needs more to become a truly high speed railroad, but a lot has been done. Someone could take it over and spend very little mone on it for several years by resting on what has already been done by Amtrak, making themselves look good, but the reality would be quite different. They would be consuming the capital installed by Amtrak.

I regard selling off the track to some separate "infrastructure" company as a very bad idea.

George
 
Essentially, the Northeast corridor is probably in the best condition of any section of railroad in the US due to Amtrak putting A LOT of money into it. Yes, it still needs more to become a truly high speed railroad, but a lot has been done. Someone could take it over and spend very little mone on it for several years by resting on what has already been done by Amtrak, making themselves look good, but the reality would be quite different. They would be consuming the capital installed by Amtrak.
I regard selling off the track to some separate "infrastructure" company as a very bad idea.

George

I've also heard that the British experiment has turned out poorly and I did notice rather high fares when I was in the UK. As for the Amtrak analogy, I was referring to the possibility that the government own the rails, not some private company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frankly, I much enjoyed the older trains with the individual compartments than 2nd class on TGV or German ICE (which were always packed to the gills with little storage). Sure they moved like glass at incredible speeds but the others always got us there on time in great "old world" surroundings and you could even open the windows as you snaked thru the mountains.
Heck, I even enjoyed my ride in the DB commuter train cars (which didn't have much in the way of creature comforts). Seems to me I rode in them from say, Siegen-Cologne, and on a couple of trips in the Ruhrgebiet. There was not a great deal of difference I could notice between the 1st class compartments and the 2d class compartments on most trains. There were fewer people in 1st class, as you might imagine.

When travelling on DB, a passenger car without compartments used to have the term Grossraumwagon on the reservation, assuming you spend the money for one. As for the point-to-point versus railpass bit, I can't answer much about that. (Uncle's deal with the Bundeswehr meant I didn't pay for most of my railroad excursions.) Surf the DB website for deals; the site's quite good, and even is available in English.
 
Afternoon everyone,

Wow... missed a busy thread here, and it touches on a lot of personal experiences which I hope could be useful. I'll deal with European rail travel first...

If you can buy your tickets well in advance, and commit to specific trains with non-changeable or non-refundable tickets, point-to-point train tickets always work out better value than rail passes. If you're planning to structure your trip on the fly, walking up and taking the next train, then a rail pass is better.

Here some useful links for everyone. In the case of the French and German websites, although I've just shown their basic web addresses, I've linked you here directly to the English versions of their homepages.

European rail travel can seem fantastically complicated to Amtrak and VIA, so a good place to start is:

www.seat61.com Designed and run by a very well informed and well travelled ex-employee of British Rail, this site is specifically designed to help British travellers plan trips from the UK to mainland Europe. As such it's structured to tell you about routings from London, but it's a brilliant way to find out connections and also which websites to book specific trains with. When planning a trip it's always worth checking the cost of tickets on the individual trains you are planning to take, as special discounted point-to-point fares may be available when booked on their own, rather than as a longer connection.

RailEurope in London have already been mentioned, and they can book most travel from the UK to Europe. They don't, however, have access to the special fares that are offered on some trains.

www.eurostar.com for London - Paris and Brussels. Round trips are usually cheaper than one ways, so for one way travel just buy a return and ditch the return ticket. Onward connections to other European destinations are available, but it's usually best to just buy your Eurostar travel here, and then your connections through the following site.....

www.voyagessncf.fr Voyages SNCF ('SNCF Travel') handles the sale of tickets for all rail travel in France, as well as virtually all European journeys originating in France... great if you're travelling through the Channel Tunnel from the UK to Europe. They also book hotels, flights, cars etc.

www.idtgv.fr Although Voyages SNCF (above) sell tickets for the super-fast TGV, this website is for the discounted idTGV trains... these are dedicated low-cost TGV services that are only bookable online. Instead of the usual first and second class division in accomodations, they offer 'idZen' (quiet coach) and 'idZap' (family / noisy coach). Best value for point to point travel on high speed TGV services.

www.diebahn.de for all travel in Germany. The travel timetable can work out virually any connection in Europe.

As I said above, if you're travelling internationally, you usually get the best fare buying your trip in segments. So for example, when I travel to my European partner university in France, I would buy train travel as follows:

1) Sheffield (UK) to London directly from midlandmainline.com (from £5 one way)

2) London to Paris from eurostar.com (from £49 student)

3) Paris to Strasbourg from voyagessncf.fr (from €20 one way)

However I recommend you read the info on seat61.com (see above) to get the personalised recommendations for purchasing your itinerary.

I'll post my thoughts about rail travel in GB separately.

*j* :blink:
 
Now that people are talking about European rail, I wonder if anyone who knows anything about the former British Rail could tell us something about how the current system of nationally-owned tracks with privately-run trains is working out. It's been at least five years since this system is in place, right?
It's been much longer (privitisation kicked off in 1993) and I can sum it up very simply. It's been a disaster. It was a bad idea, badly implemented, and badly managed. I'm not going to go into details here, but for an excellent history of the failures of privitisation, I thoroughly recommend this book by industry expert Christian Wolmar (this is an expanded edition of his earlier book 'Broken Rails'): On the Wrong Line: How Ideology and Incompetence Wrecked Britain's Railways (published by Aurum, 2005, ISBN: 1854109987)

The principle behind privitisation is that it introduces an element of competition into the system, thereby ensuring better value than could be achieved by a single, state-owned and nationalised network. But it also introduces a previously unknown drive for profit, which means corners are liable to cut, whether they are the ones that lead to fatal train accidents or simply a reduction in services to make the remaining trains more reliable. The bizarre system of penalties set up by the privitisation process have meant that the system is not necessarily more efficient or profitable. In some calculations, compensation paid by the government to rail operators has made it more expensive than if British Rail hadn't been broken up. It's also allowed certain elements of the industry to make obscene profits: 'Ministers to blame for excessive profits from train leases', from The Independent (London, 30 November 2006)

The most depressing thing about the state of our railways today is that utter confusion that privitisation caused. With twenty-four train operating companies providing service for National Rail, passengers (especially tourists who are unfamiliar with the system) can easily get confused or miss out on much cheaper fares. Not only is there a complicated set of basic ticket types for advanced purchase or walk-up travel, but now virtually every operating company offers their own discounted tickets that are only valid on their own services. There is, for just one example, more than one possible routing from Sheffield to Cambridge, although one is significantly cheaper if bought well in advance and specified to use only trains operated by one company (which is possible, but marginally slower and therefore not shown first when you search for it online).

The majority of passenger services in Britain are now operated by just a few big players: First Group, Stageoach, National Express and Virgin (a partnership with Stagecoach). Although familial branding is becoming increasingly common, different franchises usually operate independently despite being owned by the same companies.

The promise of investment in new trains did eventually pay off, but now that the rush to build fancy new trains has finished, people are realising that we've been left with a mix of largely unsuitable rolling stock. For instance, older loco-hauled Intercity trains with comfy sprung seats have been widely replaced by fixed-formation EMUs and DMUs with much less forgiving slimline seats. Four and five car Virgin Voyager DMU trains were rolled out a few years ago to replace (substantially longer formations) loco-hauled cross-country services, but have been almost universally panned for their apalling ride, acoustics comfort and luggage facilities. Every time I've ridden on one, they've been overcrowded and the toilets have stank out the whole train. Travelling east-west on the appallingly bad hourly Citylink service of Central Trains, it's quite normal for the Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham - Peterborough - Norwich service (a five hour ride) to be operated by a two carraige Turbostar DMU: a wholly unsuitable and under-sized train.

Although various changes are on the horizon for the franchises, this map sums up who is running what at the moment and this page also lists all the operators in Great Britain. Northern Ireland remains an exception, as NIR wasn't included in the privitisation process.

I could carry on whining for hours, so I'll stop there. But to sum up: services were cut, trains changed colours, we stop being 'passengers' and started being addressed as 'customers' and the fares went up. Privitisation in a nutshell.

With love from Blighty,

*j* :blink:
 
James Brown, thanks for the reply. I have two questions for you (or anyone else who knows):

1) do you think that the vast majority of people in the UK would agree with your assessment? I mean, have there been any advantages to operator-privatis/zation or is it indeed a thorough failure? And the second question is

2) do you think operator privatization was a good idea that was just poorly executed or just a bad idea? Could, for example, in different circumstances, or with more effective planning, some of the problems you mentioned be avoided?

You said it was the former but from your description of the problems, it would seem rather the later. That is, for example, it seems that the confusion over fares could be avoided, by requiring all operators to use a uniform system of fares and discounts (much like TfL requires this of operators of London Buses). More regulation could also potentially solve some of the problems about train interiors etc. (again, a relevant example would be London Buses). Proper regulation could also prevent corners being cut on safety in order to reduce costs. And anyhow, if we are interested in the UK's example in order to consider possibilities for the US, the NEC's operator already is grossly-underfunded and I imagine would have cut all corners on safety that regulations would allow (that there are relatively few accidents speaks to the success of regulation, at least here).

Please don't take me as challenging your assessment of the privatization project - you know far more than I do. I'm just trying to understand it more fully. Thanks for your help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will start with James Brown's initial statement: It was a bad idea, badly implemented. In part it is an example of the statement that those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It appears that in general the government forgot why the railroads were amalgamated in the first place.

A lot of outsiders were brought in and made significant changes without enough understanding to recognize what needed changing and what did not. In particular, to all indications, track quality and safety have significantly declined and it is only the longevity of the components that is staving off disaster.

While in the US we have developed over a period of in excess of 150 years principles and concepts of joint operations, trackage rights, etc., all done with oversight of a government regulating agency, these things do not exist anywhere in Europe, and in general, including the UK within living memory, the railroad was part of the government.

Yes, this has its negatives. They have tended to act like government bureacracies with all their kingdom building and turf protecting aspects. However, they did tend to listen to the public and provide a public service. Unfortunately this was usually to the detriment of the freight side. Boxcars don't vote. They have also been singularly resistant to technical and labor saving advances, in part because of the power of their labor unions. Despite the speed of their passenger services, a lot of practices look extremely primitive to American eyes.

But: The British privitization has not cured any of the negatives. There were things that needed modernization, but the things neede have been impeded, not assisted by privitization.

I work with several men who in their earlier years were British Rail employees on the track side of things, and most still follow the actions of the railway there closely, and none of them have anything better to say than what James Brown has said.
 
James Brown, thanks for the reply. I have two questions for you (or anyone else who knows):
1) do you think that the vast majority of people in the UK would agree with your assessment? I mean, have there been any advantages to operator-privatis/zation or is it indeed a thorough failure?
Most of my friends are students in graduate or post-graduate education. Amongst us, I'm sensing only negative opinions of the current state of rail services. Fares are rising, and it's difficult to always get the headline discounted fares that are always advertised.

Additionally, train ridership is rising fast. We pay a much more realistic price for gasoline than in the USA, so people are moving to trains and public transport in great numbers. And the trouble is the very short length of train operating franchises (never more than 10 years) means no operators are prepared to make the necessary long term investments in services. There is very little room left for growth or flexibility in the use of existing infrastructure. As I mentionned earlier, the transition from loco hauled trains to fixed formation DMU units on long distance routes is also felt through chronic overcrowding, and we notice that. It's a great idea for Virgin Cross-Country to say that they will increase a more frequent clockface timetable of trains using smaller units throughout the day, but more people will still want to get the 5.30pm train out of a city than the 4.30pm. It is possible to fix two four-car trains together, but what makes that laughable is that they have no through-cab connections, so Virgin still have to employ two sets of on board crew to staff the full length of the train !

And the second question is 2) do you think operator privatization was a good idea that was just poorly executed or just a bad idea? Could, for example, in different circumstances, or with more effective planning, some of the problems you mentioned be avoided?
Well, as I understand it, the Swiss railway network is privatised, and it's frequently the one we look to the most for inspiration. In my humble non-industry opinion, I could only imagine privitisation could work in Britain if...

  • train operators were awarded contracts of AT LEAST 20 years to encourage longer term planning for passenger growth
  • the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) imposed a much stricter system of ticketing and ticket types to encourage passengers to regard the system as one single network, simply operated by different companies
  • the government, the ATOC and Network Rail had a much more powerful and visionary approach to long term investment and major infrastructure projects
Hope that helps; remember, I'm just a bloke who takes the train and enjoys looking out of the window :rolleyes:

*j*
 
In particular, to all indications, track quality and safety have significantly declined and it is only the longevity of the components that is staving off disaster.
One thing I don't understand is why track quality should have declined as a result of privatization. Network Rail, a state-owned and operated company, still owns the rail. Only operators, so far as I know, have been privatized.

Jamesbrownontheroad's suggestions about how things might be done if they were to be redone are interesting. 2 and 3 seem quite reasonable, if not even obvious; my concern with 1 would be that some kind of trial period would probably be necessary, or else operators would at quite high risk starting some contracts in markets with uncertain, or worse, rapidly changing ridership (the latter even the trial period couldn't fix). This might result in operators being afraid to being offering service on many potentially succesful routes.
 
In particular, to all indications, track quality and safety have significantly declined and it is only the longevity of the components that is staving off disaster.
One thing I don't understand is why track quality should have declined as a result of privatization. Network Rail, a state-owned and operated company, still owns the rail. Only operators, so far as I know, have been privatized.
It declined because IIRC, originally even the rails were privatized. It was only after a series of serious and fatal accidents, that the Government brought back the rails and created Network Rail. That one move cost Britian more money than if they had never privatized the system in the first place.
 
Well, as I understand it, the Swiss railway network is privatised, and it's frequently the one we look to the most for inspiration. *j*
This really surprised me so I did some research on it; SBB is easily in the running for world's best passenger railway (of course, the exact criteria for this are hard to pin down) so I was surprised to hear it was private or partially private.

My research was really quick, so perhaps there is more to the story but it seems that in Switzerland the track is owned by the government - apparently not even by a government-owned holding company like Network Rail, but directly by the government like interstate highways or other roads are in the US. The operator SBB, on the other hand, is a separate entity from the track owner, it is technically a independently incorporated entity, just one that is entirely owned by the government (roughly similar to Amtrak's status or, I believe Network Rail's). (note that in Sweden, I know the case is similar where Banverket, a government agency, owns the tracks and SJ, a state-owned subsidiary runs intercity trains).

On an entirely different topic, has anyone seen the new Casino Royale (James Bond movie)? That train does not really exist in Montenegro, right? Is it a German ICE?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top