Brussels is not my idea of a normal holiday destination (not hot enough, too urban), but my old friend Beverley lived there, was getting married, and had invited us to her wedding, so not being ones to turn down an invitation (and free booze!), we trundled over on the EuroStar for a long weekend in xxx 19xxx.

The EuroStar will, one day, be a great experience.
However, it has been the subject of sufficient British Government inertia and petty-mindedness that much of it's advantage has been pissed away.
The poor thing starts at Waterloo of all places (entirely the wrong side of London), trundles over the railway equivalent of Spaghetti junction and through South London back gardens at 40mph along a single-track line that hasn't been used since the Beeching cuts and had it's last set of rails and signals installed in 1949.
When finally free of London, it joins the Folkestone Main Line ("ooh er, 4 lines...."), and accelerates to the dizzy speed of 55mph until the mouth of the Tunnel, where it accelerates to 75mph.
Only once through the Tunnel and out in to France does it get out of first gear. I'd never been 186mph on a train before. It's like flying very, very close to the ground. But very smooth. Why can't we do this in the UK?
And whilst on the subject, why does the EuroStar only go to London (and not any points North of London, for no readily apparent reason)? This despite the train-maintenance facility being at Wormwood Scrubs near the M40. Huh?

We invented the railway, and have entirely lost the plot: it is a viable alternative over long-distances to the aeroplane only if the speeds and costs are equivalent. That means very fast trains, fast lines, good signalling and good maintenance, all of which are entirely absent from the UK network.

Brussels is a fascinating place. It has very little really interesting history and has been substantialy neutral in the making of the history of Europe, which explains why it was chosen as the site of The European Parliament. Apart from the Mannekin Pis (the little boy who pees a fountain) and the Science Park with the big aluminium balls, most people have very little idea of what Brussels looks like.

Commerce is dominated by the expense accounts of the European Parliament; thus it is not a cheap place to visit. Eating is expensive, travel is expensive, houses are expensive, I don't doubt garages are expensive (all those fully-expensed cars). But it is not overtly flash: there is not the commercial extravagance you see in similar cities in the US.

The public transport system is excellent: during the 1940,50s and 60s they ripped up all the main roads and buried tube lines under them. The trains are large, comfortable, prompt and extremely accelerative. It is an object lesson in how London Transport should be run. Bob Kiley is LT's last great hope to rescue London's crumbling transport infrastructure, and now the political wrangling is over I hope Ken gives him a very free hand.

In addition to the tubes, they have trams which run down the centres of most of the major roads. Like Amsterdam, this makes for unbelievably complex traffic-light systems at major intersections, especially as pedestrian and cycle lights are incorporated. Light and airy, and exhaust plume-free, the trams are a good solution to overground transport. Brussels is a good example of a city making the public transport infrastructure so good that people don't need to drive in. London, take heed.
Cars are allowed in to central Brussels unimpeded (and the roads are good) but Brussels does not have the jams we see in London.