Curbing global warming is becoming an ever more pressing priority and governments at looking at ways to reduce emissions and foster more sustainable lifestyles. One aspect that has been receiving a lot of focus and investment is mobility. In February of this year, the European Commission announced it will support 10 pilot projects to establish new rail services or improve existing ones. The initiative is also intended to promote efficient and green mobility, in line with the Commission’s Strategy for Sustainable and Smart Mobility.
But how does that translate for travelers in terms of budget? Will it be more or less affordable? Which? Travel, a company based in the UK, has conducted some research showing that for a family of four, it would be more affordable to take the train than to fly.
“Many of us want to reduce our carbon footprint by swapping the plane for the train, but price remains a barrier,” Rory Boland, editor of Which? Travel told The Independent. “While new sleeper train routes have launched across Europe, fares are prohibitive for many travelers. The good news is that there are savings to be made for families and larger groups who can share train compartments.
We found plane journeys emit up to seven times more CO2 per passenger.
Which? Travel
Which? Travel looked at three European sleeper routes and compared the price of the cheapest private compartment in the first week of August, with the cost of the cheapest flight and a night’s accommodation. Two of the services are run by Nightjet: Paris to Vienna and Brussels to Vienna. The third one, European Sleeper, is a service from London to Berlin expected to launch on May 25th. Which? Travel factored in the cost of taking the Eurostar to Brussels or Paris to catch the night trains.
Boland told The Independent that the company’s research found solo travelers and couples would have to pay more to choose the train over the plane. One aspect that Which? Travel did not consider and that perhaps ought to be factored in the calculations is the cost on the environment. “We also compared the carbon emissions for each route and found plane journeys emit up to seven times more CO2 per passenger,” the company states on its website.
Traveling from London to Berlin (via Brussels) by train emits 32kg of CO2 per person, while 234kg by plane. Traveling from London to Vienna (via Paris) by train emits 40Kg of CO2 per person, while 307kg by plane. Traveling from London to Aberdeen by train emits 50kg of CO2 per passenger, while by air it more than doubles to 119kg per person. For travelers to have a thorough understanding of the costs, it would be relevant to consider also the cost one inflicts on the environment when choosing to travel by plane. And if these calculations were shaped into policy, travelers would be even more incentivized to take those costs into account.
The numbers collected by Which? Travel showed that two of the three European services were cheaper for families of four and six. Groups of four could save £94 (107 euros), while a bigger group could save up to £267 (306 euros). European Sleeper and Nightjet both offer cheaper sleeper fares if travelers share a couchette or sleeper cabin with other travelers. Children under five travel free on Nightjet if they share the bed with a parent; children under three do not pay on European Sleeper.
In the case of the UK, the company looked at GWR’s Night Riviera from London Paddington to Penzance, and the Caledonian Express from London Euston to the Highlands. The price of Cornwall’s sleeper service was similar to the cost of flights, but cheaper with railcard, which gives the holder a discount of around £50 (57 euros). It’s possible to take a surfboard or bike for free.
