Originally Posted by
stimpy
I take the train often for work, but when touring with the family it is a poor replacement for a car. Obviously the cost is cheaper by car with several people, you don't have to lug your bags on and off trains, you have food with you, you have baby items which are critical if you have a little one, and most important of all, you can stop anywhere you like. You don't have to pass by the things you want to see at high speed. You see a neat old church or castle, or an inviting park, you just pull over. And if you want to buy some wine or antiques, that can be very problematic by train.
I think it is more a lifestyle choice. Even if you have several people in an auto (the OP didn't actually say), some train companies offer discounts for groups, plus train fares include fuel costs, while auto rental prices don't. And, as I'm sure you know, fuel costs in Europe are far higher than in the US.
This stopping for the odd castle seems to me a romantic fantasy. Most people, I would guess, especially on longer drives, would use the high-speed motorways, where these "inviting" places are no more accessible than from a train. And this is not to mention that trains travel far faster and more directly than autos do.
I would agree that there might be some situations where an auto might offer greater convenience than a train/bus, but this doesn't sound to me like one of those situations.