The energy required for trains will always be far lower than for planes. There’s no practical way to drastically drop emissions while still flying so much.
And overnight trains from and to a city are overall much more comfortable than travelling for 2h to an airport to be there 2h early, often in the middle of the night, going through security, etc.
For even half full inter-city trains I don't think there's any doubt about which is more energy efficient. Trains will tend to win by about an order of magnitude. Planes aren't any worse than cars containing a single person, though.
At least in Europe there is a push to bring back overnight trains as an alternative to carbon-intensive flying. So it's not totally out of the realm of impossibility, particularly if things like carbon taxes change the equations.
There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel, and train travel has a much larger capacity. Plus, rail station are often in the center of the city rather than on the outskirts like airports are. e.g. traveling by train from Boston to NYC vs flying is almost a wash time wise due to travel to/from the airport + buffer time for security.
Rail is also more environmentally efficient, once the initial infrastructure is put in place. Airplanes burn tons of fossil fuels, trains can run on renewables.
There's also the environmental angle where trains are generally way more efficient [0] in terms of emissions per passenger, particularly compared to plane travel.
I'm sorry, but rail is the lowest form carbon footprint you can find, if you exclude biking and walking.
Also, boarding a train is so much more comfortable and convenient than boarding a plane (no security check, at least in Europe, wide seats, no emergency tutorial, ...). Also the train drops me right in the city center.
I would argue that up to 500 km of distance, high speed train is the best option, then it becomes debatable.
For the same price I actually prefer night train to airlines, by far.
Sure, airlines are faster, but the time to go in and out of the airport, security checks, boarding, etc... Your one hour flight easily translates into 3-4 uncomfortable hours.
With the train, it is usually downtown to downtown, just hop into the train and you are done. The journey may last 10 hours, but it is relaxing. Trains are much more comfortable than planes and sleeping is less of a problem, even with a standard seat.
With sleeping cars, you have what is essentially a moving hotel room, making your travel time effectively zero.
It's not necessarily more expensive either. Instead of arriving in the afternoon, you have the whole day ahead of you, and you mostly spent down time for travel. To get the same amount of waking hours in a trip where you fly you would need an extra night in the accommodation of choice at the travel destination. That's €50 – €100 extra. And of course the costs of getting from the airport to a place you actually want to spend time, and the costs of your time in terms of leave taken from work!
For many sleeper trains already are cost effective. And as soon as governments finally give in and stop subsidising air travel it will only become more attractive.
And every train fan knows that there is one thing that can't be beat: get off the train in the early morning, take a few steps, and you're standing in front of the station and you're done. You can go visit a museum or do some other leisurely thing. No security, no delays in getting your luggage, not being stuck in airport getting ready for the train/taxi/bus to some place humans actually want to be.
If you put 10 passengers in one fancy business railcar, it will cost 50c/km and reduce greenhouse emissions relative to flying by half rather than by a factor of ten.
Night/hotel trains only make sense with decent density.
Trains are fine but also very expensive. And rail networks are already very congested. And also very outdated in large parts of Europe. People like the idea of trains but not the practice of high ticket prices, disruptive delays, multi day journeys to cover the distance you can fly in 2 hours, etc.
The main issue with aviation is that fuel is burned, which is bad for the environment. However a lot of short haul flight can transition to battery electric pretty soon. Probably before any significant amount of new rail gets built. That removes the major environmental concerns. And lots of small planes can fly point to point so you remove the dependence on big central hubs as well.
These figures suggest that the train is the most efficient form of travel and that plane is one of the least efficient forms of travel (although it is better than hovercraft for long distance travel).
Especially night trains - if you are able to sleep in that somewhat noisy and shaky environment. You travel overnight, where you can't do anything anyways and come up in the other place in the morning and have the full day available. When flying you typically need a hotel night more and have to get to city center first.
I completely agree, except I think trains have a much higher competitive range, possibly up to 1,000 km .
With a plane 1,000 km trip including all things you mention like arriving at the airport in advance, boarding, finding your way back to the city center, etc. would come easily to 4-5 hours when you calculate it door-to-door. This could be comparable to a train at 200-250 km/h.
Also, trains tend to be more punctual and less prone to delays compared to planes. And arriving in the city center as opposed to 40-50 kms out is a big advantage indeed.
And overnight trains from and to a city are overall much more comfortable than travelling for 2h to an airport to be there 2h early, often in the middle of the night, going through security, etc.
reply