Those air heads are off the rails
Over short distances, train travel trumps air travel in every department.
By Mark Watson Published 25 November 2010 14:07It is rare that I am seized by the desire to grab a complete stranger and urge them to change their ways. I don't consider myself to take the moral high ground on many issues. I eat animals even though I'm aware it would probably be more ethical to stop, and I regularly pour massive quantities of oil on to previously unpolluted stretches of countryside (in the light of the recent Twitter joke trial, I should probably place on record immediately that the last remark was humorous, with no basis in reality). "Live and let live" would be my philosophy, if I didn't come from a generation too vacuous and addled by MTV to have philosophies.
But this week I found myself overhearing (by which I mean deliberately eavesdropping on) a conversation in a café. A businesswoman was looking ahead to a trip from London to Manchester. "I was all set to drive," she said proudly, "and then I thought to myself, what about the plane?! Booked myself a flight. Only takes an hour. Brilliant. It's got to be the best way to travel up and down the country."
Completely nuts
“What about trains?" I longed to scream at her. "Think about your carbon footprint. Think about the ridiculous false economy of flying to and from isolated airports miles out of town, against the ease of gliding into Manchester city centre! Ask yourself whether you really want to climb thousands of feet into the air, only to begin your descent before you've managed to get the packet of pretzels open!"
I would like to report that I did yell all these things at my fellow diner, but honesty compels me to admit that I lost my nerve. However, I gave her a searching look that communicated all of the above. I would be surprised if she hadn't left the café and immediately started rebooking her travel.
This is not really a moral stance at all, though. I'm just amazed at the number of internal flights that take place every day, and the number of people who can be bothered to go through the tedious routine - shoes off, laptop out of the bag, queuing for a taxi at the other end - when they could be on a train. Even flying to Paris seems bizarre to me, when the infinitely more romantic Eurostar awaits. But flying London-Manchester? Or for that matter London-Glasgow, or London-Newcastle? It's not just using a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's doing that when there is a perfectly good nutcracker on the table right next to you.
Over short distances, train travel trumps air travel in every department. You can plug in your laptop and get things done. It's cheaper, provided you book in advance, which in the age of the internet surely doesn't present a big obstacle to the sort of web-savvy business-folk who are making these journeys. You arrive smack-bang in the middle of your chosen destination, rather than at an airport sheepishly bearing the name of a city situated more than 100 miles away.
It's at least as time-efficient: the time plane travel supposedly saves you is nullified by the getting-there-early and the hanging around at the other end. And, yes, it is a lot more environmentally friendly. All right, the world may be doomed anyway, but do we really have to rub it in by using carbon-hungry planes to fly us up the road?
Plane stupid
Then there's the idea that trains are somehow too unreliable for the hotshot traveller. Perhaps at one time this was true. But having spent almost every minute of my waking life since 2002 on a train, I can assure you that they are now at least as reliable as planes, and you don't have the suspicion that they might plummet out of the sky. All train operators have got more punctual and efficient in the past few years: that's not based on statistics, but on experience of visiting every station in the United Kingdom. It's more than five years since I was delayed for more than an hour on a train. Can you really tell me that planes beat that?
I apologise for venting here what I should have taken out on that hapless business traveller in the café, but it really is time we all got on trains more. I'm writing this in first class from Edinburgh to London: it cost me £29. We've had breathtaking coastal views all the way. I've got a lot of work done. I'm thoroughly relaxed. Actually, on second thoughts, leave this for me. Don't you dare book a train ticket. You keep getting on those aeroplanes. I'll wave at you from my deserted luxury carriage. You won't see me, of course, because you'll be in a cloud, or in turbulence, or watching part of a film that will be interrupted when you land, or congratulating yourself on the time saved.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















21 comments
I took the train from London to Guildford the other day. It saved me heaps of time.
Train travel is really not cheaper than air. I travelled by train from Glasgow to Nottingham, booking in advance for over £100 and could have flown, in half the time (including security ect) for £47!
Its overcrowded and massively overpriced.
Train travel is a real a journey, bumping into fellow passengers and listening in on their mobile phone conservations. And there is the scenic route to look out on when bored the sheep and cows in the field, and the dirty bustling noisy stations en route as students commputers and football fans board and leave. With air travel you are stuck in a seat restricted in your movements and forced to eat plastic food and only the clouds to look out on. And it takes you hours and hours to get to the airport sexcurity and past duty free. Great to see Watsons quartly bolg. It was worth waiting for.
I get the train from Bathgate to Edinburgh and find it's so good Ive never even looked into flights.
Great article, but only really true if you manage to book in advance. If just turn up at a station and buy a ticket to a destination several hundreds of miles away, you will pay several hundreds of pounds to make your trip, which is why flying has become so attractive for many. I recently had to fork out £125 for a single from London to Preston, even though I already had a ticket but it was for a different train that I had missed. That's the problem.
========= http://clothesmall.org =========
Best regards for you all,
Looking forward to your visiting.
========= http://clothesmall.org =========
I do so agree with you that train travel is better than air - but time and time again I try to travel by train only to give in a go by plane after all. Why? It is so expensive to go by train (Geneva and Edinburgh form London are my regular destinations). I have researched it many times far in advance and the plane is always less than half the price. Time is another issue - I live nearer to Heathrow than Kings Cross - but the cost is the killer. It should not be so, because it is unrepresentative of the carbon cost, and I hate myself for it but I almost always end up flying.
I agree that train travel is preferable and more agrreable. But can't anything be done about the reidiculous fare structure ? UK train travel must be the most expensive in thw world .
Interesting that nobody mentions coaches. National Express and Megabus can get you to most cities and big towns, with extra stops on the way, and are a fraction of the cost of a train. In my experience, they don't take that much longer than a train (apart from the night bus from London to Edinburgh - that one's a killer, but most of them are fine).
Speaking as an anorak, the trains from Mancy to Londy be 'virgin' on the ridiculous !
London to Edinburgh: a truly beautiful train journey, assuming you're sitting on the right side to enjoy the stunning views of the Northumbrian and Scottish coasts, and even better if you continue to Leuchars (not to mention the wifi for the more boring stretches). However, you do have to book in advance to benefit from the lowest fares - laszt minute can be a rip-off. @Eastendpromise, I find coaches are fine for medium-length journeys but rather constricting over long distances - on a train you can at least wander down the corridor to the buffet car or just stand in the vestibule for a while. And the views and convenience certainly trump air travel for national and not too distant international travel. Any further and, as Jane Penson points out, cost starts to get comparatively prohibitive.
Perhaps when these superfast trains come into action and journey times are cut and prices are cut drastically and football fans given with their own tail end locked and sealed containers, and there is a seat for every traveller, then trains would be more appealing.
Coach travel usually takes twice as long as train.
I'm a web savvy business traveller (Newcastle to London), but can't make use of advance cheap rail fares, because the off peak times they are available for are not suitable for business meetings in London with return the same day. Moreover, although very cheap fares are advertised, there seem to be so few of them that they are effectively unobtainable. I suspect that the very cheap fares are for 'bait-and-switch' advertising only. Indeed, I once wrote to my MP about it after having failed repeatedly to be able to buy advertised cheap tickets minutes after they 'became available'. And the Heathrow Express glides into London city centre just as effectively as the train, while the Newcastle Metro does the equivalent from the airport on the return journey.
Ah, yes, I'd somehow forgotten about the football fan phenomenon. I was once stuck in a Eurostar carriage with a large group of Scottish fans - boisterous was an understatement. Even at 2 hours and 20 minutes, the journey did drag somewhat.
Train travel can be very heavy on the wallet, in theory it should be cheaper, but then once in the air the plane does not need expensive track to be maintained.
I noticed over two years ago all MPs were saying that we needed to cut down travel to save the earth, but they just seem to do more. At the last world climate change conference there were 40000 delegates and press!
Manchester by train would cost me £150 rtn, and I'd also have to travel into London Euston to pick up that train. By car it took me 4.5 hrs, nonstop, and cost me less than £100 in petrol. Train travel is too expensive and a hassle.
If the rtn ticket were only £50 then I'd consider it.
Post new comment