In Europe, trains are full, and more are on the way
Rail travel in Europe is enjoying strong demand as many passengers find trains more comfortable and convenient than flying, especially for medium-distance trips between dense urban centers. Commenters argue that quality varies sharply by country: Switzerland, Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands are often praised, while Germany and the UK draw criticism for delays, poor cross‑border coordination, and high prices that can make flying cheaper. The exchange highlights tensions between climate goals, heavy public subsidies and infrastructure politics, with some calling for integrated ticketing and massive investment in high‑speed and night trains, and others warning that capacity, reliability and local transit must improve first.
Overall view of European trains
- Many commenters praise European rail as far superior to US systems and often preferable to flying: central stations, comfort, ability to move around, and avoiding airports.
- Others stress Europe is not “small”; long-distance rail is mostly about dense corridors and mid-range trips (up to ~600–800 km), not continent‑spanning travel.
- Experiences vary widely by country: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy often cited positively; Germany and the UK more often criticized.
Germany as a weak link
- Frequent complaints: long‑distance Deutsche Bahn (ICE) delays, cascading missed connections, route changes mid-journey, infrastructure fragility, and poor IT/ticketing.
- Some say short‑distance/S‑Bahn is “mostly on point”; issues concentrate on ICE and Rhine corridors.
- Debate on causes: overused mixed passenger/freight tracks, underinvestment (“debt brake”), complex multipolar network, staffing and maintenance problems.
Cross‑border rail and ticketing
- International routes often delayed at borders (e.g., Germany–Poland, Germany–Switzerland). Swiss operators reportedly limit German trains to protect punctuality.
- Buying cross‑border tickets can be surprisingly hard; multiple reports of websites failing, not selling full through‑tickets, or not exposing prices.
- Schengen makes physical border crossing easy, but network design, frequency, and ticketing interoperability remain problematic.
Cost vs flying
- Repeated theme: long‑distance trains often far more expensive than low‑cost flights (e.g., Paris–Naples, London–Edinburgh, Copenhagen–Aarhus vs Spain).
- Some argue aviation enjoys large implicit subsidies (untaxed fuel, regional airport support) and structural advantages; others point to enormous fixed rail-line costs.
- Several posters say they would choose trains for environmental reasons but are priced out.
Security and “get in/get out”
- The classic “just board” advantage is eroding: high‑speed services like AVE (Spain) and Eurostar have airport‑style checks, though usually lighter than airports.
- Still, door‑to‑door time often favors trains because stations are central and pre‑departure buffers shorter.
Motivations and induced demand
- Disagreement over how much climate concern vs convenience and price drive rail use.
- Some present survey links and personal choices favoring rail for emissions; skeptics highlight declared vs actual behavior and survey-question framing.
- Induced demand is framed positively for rail: more service increases attractiveness, which scales relatively well in space and environmental impact.
Design, payment, and access
- Examples of high satisfaction: Italy’s high‑speed killing many domestic flights; Dutch nationwide tap‑in/tap‑out card/credit‑card system across all transit.
- One claim that rail mainly serves urban professionals is strongly disputed; others report very broad usage across classes, regions, and trip types (commuting, leisure, youth Interrail).