11 points

I know flights are usually cheaper (unfortunately, when you look at the CO2 emissions), but I like to take the train from time to time. Last time I did Barcelona - Madrid in high-speed-train, that was quite nice.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Sweden is so bloody long. I’ve gone to Norway and Denmark by train. Denmark by train was roughly the same time as flying, including transfer etc. Too far for any other country really

permalink
report
reply
9 points

The trick is to catch a sleeper train. Have a full day of work/leisure, board the train, sleep, and wake up at your destination in the morning.

The Stockholm-Copenhagen journey is short enough that they park the train somewhere in the middle of southern Sweden for an hour or two to make the timing more convenient.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, did that to Norway. Denmark was like six hours, with one switch in Lund.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

To neighboring countries yes, if there is a good connection. If there is a night train even further. However, the price should not be much higher than a flight and I want to change train as little as possible. Buying tickets should not be too complicated either. Unfortunately, taking an airplane is often easier in my experience. We need a true high-speed railway network across Europe. Something like the Shinkanzen.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I personally don’t use trains, because there are no reasonable connections on the routes I frequently use. Also, trips by train (especially when it’s cross-border), are often more expensive than the corresponding flights.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

One of my dream vacations is to get my wife and kid Eurail Global Passes for a few weeks or a month, and just backpack everywhere constantly staying in hostels and seeing everything. It’d probably be kind of stressful and tiring, but memorable.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

I’ve never done that, exactly, but I’ve done several trips of that length around Europe and South America.

My (general) sanity rules have become these: never stop for less than two nights, always spend four nights in the same place after 2-3 shorter stops, and spend a full week somewhere during the trip.

While this may feel limiting, I’ve found that anything more strenuous has always overwhelmed someone in the group.

Edit: minor schedule adjustments

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Thank you for the sane guidelines. My latent hubris would no doubt have me blurring about the continent like the subject of an international manhunt. Having spent 48 hours on a cross country Amtrak once, I should be less keen to recreate the experience in European terms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I’d say: do the opposite! Don’t plan anything, stay no more than two nights at the same place, jump on a train and see where you end up. Then, if you don’t like, just take the next train somewhere else.

I did this twice in my early twenties and it was amazing. I mean, it was absolutely horrible. I slept on bark benches, in Cafés, in train stations, before train stations (until they turned on the sprinklers)… I was picked up by the police because we got lost in a field and more than once I was convinced I’d die. But it was absolutely worth it and both trips became core memories / PTSD trigger.

But seriously, don’t follow this advice if you have a kid and are not an immortal twenty-something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s basically how I developed my current planning guidelines lol.

It was fun/terrifying but I’d rather not sleep in hotels that charge by the hour these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

My kid would enter a possibly permanent fugue state and run away from home, but it’d certainly be memorable

permalink
report
parent
reply