For short haul routes between many destinations (mainly in Europe and Asia) you’ll often have the choice between a fast plane, and a slow train. In this article I’ll look into which form of transport you should take based on a few criteria: price, comfort and environmental impact. Trains are often slower and more expensive, but unsurprisingly have less impact on the climate. So please read my post on the age old quesion: Train vs Plane
Comparison of Prices
When comparing flights to trains within the UK we can see that flying is almost always cheaper thanks to this handy comparison from Which? This holds true to my experience too. When I was at University it was usually much cheaper for me to fly home from Exeter to Norwich than it would be to catch the train. The train would usually be around £60 for a return with a railcard whilst the cheapest flight I ever found was £30. It also took just 2 hours door to door compared to 5 hours by train.
However, these cheap cheap air fares come at an environmental cost. This chart from Which? also shows the associated CO2 emissions for all the domestic UK journeys above (note – CO2e means CO2 equivalent which is a measure of all greenhouse gas emissions from the journey (e.g. methane, NOx and Ozone, not just Carbon Dioxide). Unsurprisingly, flying is significantly worse for the environment than train travel. In the next section I’ll look at the environmental impact of each form of transport in more detail.
The case against trains
So, obviously we’ve established that flying is much worse for the environment than taking the train. Aviation does have some advantages however. To build a train track you need to effectively cut a straight line through the countryside. This can be pretty damaging for the environment, especially if it’s going through a protected area. Planes on the other hand fly straight over land so, except for around airports, they have much less direct impact on the land.
Just look at the ever-controversial UK’s HS2 high speed rail project. The planned route will destroy or damage five internationally protected wildlife sites as well as hundreds of local wildlife sites and woodlands. It’s also worth noting that to build more train tracks will usually involve destroying more natural habitats. Airports on the other hand are mostly already built so adding a few extra flights won’t directly impact natural areas in the same way trains will.
Eurostar as an example
Eurostar very helfully provide the below infographic showing how much better for the environment trains are compared to flying. Especially on shorter journeys, trains are much better for the environment. The Eurostar from London to Paris for example emits over 90% less CO2 than flying. I have found that the Eurostar tends to be marginally more expensive than flying, but after you factor in transport to and from the airport it’s much closer. For example, at the time of writing a return train from London to Amsterdam is around £110 compared the £75 with Easyjet. The Eurostar departure times are also much more convenient.
With Eurostar you also get (slightly) comfier and more spacious seats and don’t have to worry about paying extra for large baggage which is a positive.
Talk a bit about London to Glasgow
Another example of when trains can be a much comfier and more eco friendly experience is London to Glasgow, a trip I will be making at the end of December. Because I didn’t want to wake up at 4:00 am a one way flight from London to Glasgow with Easyjet ended up costing me £70 per person. This is undoubtedly the quickest way to make the journey but arguably not the best.
Enter the Caledonian Sleeper, an overnight train which connects Scotland to London which I will be taking on my way back from Glasgow. They offer 3 classes. The standard seat is just a typical train seat, The Classic Room has a double bed (with optional en-suite bathroom at a fee). The Club Room is the most luxurious with a double bed and bathroom. I went for the Club Room, that is a bunk with en-suite bathroom and breakfast included. Unless you’re willing to pay thousands of pounds you won’t be able to find any flight with proper beds like this.
And all this for only £290 (this includes 2 passengers in one room). The Caledonian double room would cost £345 whilst a standard seat is just £50. Of course, for this level of comfort at a relatively low price there has to be a downside. With just over 7 hours of travel time (leaving at 11:40pm and arriving at 7:08am) it’s not exactly quick. But you also save on having to pay for an extra night at a hotel so it could well end up being cheaper.
If you don’t mind travelling at a slower pace, or want the novel experience of staying on a sleeper train then this could be a great alternative to flying. Again, it will also have a much lower impact on the environment so it’s a win-win. The views are stunning too, if you’re not travelling at night that is…
Why you should still travel by train
Although trains may seem slower than flying, often it is comparable, even quicker, to travel by train. Take my prior London to Glasgow journey as an example. The train, on average will take 5h 11m according to Scotrail. Whilst a flight with Easyjet from London Stansted airport is 1h 15m. I happen to live 15m away from Euston, so travel to and from the station is negligible. To get to Stansted however you have to factor in much more extra time. The Stansted Express would take me 45m, plus the recommended 2h pre-arrival time at the airport. Then add another 30m from stepping off the plane to central Glasgow and you’re almost looking at the same amount of time. The flying option also involves much more stress as you’ll have to use several modes of transport and worry about security.
So when it comes to the Train vs Plane question you have to ask yourself: are the marginal savings in cost and time worth it considering the disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions? Ultimately that decision is up to you, but it is worth considering.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, most long journeys you plan on taking probably won’t be possible by train. Unless you’re travelling domestically or on a handful of relatively close international routes (mostly in Europe) flying is probably your best bet. But, if train travel is an option I would say it is definitely worth doing. The price points are often comparable with flying and it is far more comfortable. I for one would much rather spend 4 hours on a train compared to 1 hour in a flying box plus another few hours travelling to the airport and dealing with security.
When it comes to deciding between Train vs Plane the decision ultimately boils down to what you prioritise. If you value the environment over efficiency, or comfort over price then the train could be for you. I’ll probably stick to flying mostly (after all my channel is called Freddie’s Flight Reviews), but I will still take the train from time to time.
More from me…
Some relevant articles I’ve written include:
- Should you fly direct or with a stopover? – comparing cost, experience and environmental impact
- The best airlines in the world according to me – if you want help deciding who to fly with
- The best and worst types of aircraft to fly on – Especially important on long flights.
Amex referral links:
- The Platinum Card – You Receive 35,000 Membership Reward points after spending £4,000 in the first 3 months: https://americanexpress.com/en-gb/referral/fREDEGgRA5?CPID=100493012
- British Airways Card: You Receive 12,000 Avios after spending £1,000 in the first 3 months, I receive 8,000 Avios: https://americanexpress.com/en-gb/referral/fREDEGuUeO?CPID=100493012