Madness

[lyorn]

I just discovered that for one person travelling about 600 km who needs stops of unsure lengths en route, renting a car plus paying for petrol at 1,40 Euro a litre cost about the same as taking the train. And its not even a Smart car. And rental is far easier to do than buying a train ticket.

What is it with the trains? The suck in everything but speed on the prime routes.

Comments

More or less Madness

[mad-freddy.livejournal.com]

There's one reason to take a train for travelling, at least in my opinion: I don't like driving long distances all by myself. Last christmas I went to Zurich in Switzerland, which is about 450km (280 miles) from home. It might have taken a bit less time to go by car and it would have cost about the same, but taking the train was the better option for me - I spent most of the 12 hours for the journey there and back again (trains in Switzerland take it really easy and slow) reading*, which is simply impossible while driving.
So in case I can afford the time I still take the train quite willingly.
(*to be specific, I read Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman and can only recommend the book!)

Re: More or less Madness

[lyorn.livejournal.com]

I actually like taking the train -- it's still cheaper than owning a car, and less hassle and faster than driving or flying.

But the amount of hoops they make you jump through to get one of the price-reduced tickets are absurd. Not only do you have to know the exact train you want to take, including changes of train (which undoes most of the benefits of a hourly train schedule), and buy weeks in advance, but you need a credit card to your own name (buying tickets for someone else might bring the end of trains as we know them, apparently), a fast internet connection and a printer.

But as I have the car and are already paying for it, if I drive it or not, I take the train only if my employer pays the fare and I get the flexibility that coughing up twice the money buys.