Trains or planes? The great European travel test

I had a letter recently from a monk called Brother Michael. He is an unusual character who holds, or has held, several Guinness World Records for air travel. These include: most flights in 24 hours (42); most flights in 30 days (128); and the world's longest air ticket (unlikely to be beaten in the age of electronic ticketing). What struck me more than his list of broken records, however, was Brother Michael's motto: "Never a train, always a plane". In that, I suspect, he is even more unusual. I would guess that most of us, given the choice and not too greater difference in journey time or fare, feel the opposite, and prefer railway travel to taking a flight. I certainly do. The whole experience is more relaxing. You have more personal space, more control over where you sit and when you move around; more of the journey is spent travelling rather than queuing or waiting. In addition, your luggage is not limited or charged as extra, and, as long as it's not snowing the wrong kind of snow, you are probably less vulnerable to serious delays and cancellations (And, of course, rail travel is probably more environmentally friendly than flying.) So, with air fares steadily rising, and the European railway infrastructure steadily improving, I have had a look at how fares and journey times from city centre to city centre now compare. The result is an interesting one. Obviously, for the quick hops through the tunnel, from London to Paris and Brussels, there is no competition from the air. The train is not only faster but cheaper. But for destinations beyond these obvious end stops, you need to change trains in Paris or Brussels (or sometimes Lille). As a result, the journey time increases significantly. To Cologne, Tours, Lyon, Amsterdam and Marseilles, for example, the train journey takes up to an hour more than the flight. This alone is probably not enough to put off those of us who enjoy rail travel, but a bigger drawback is that in all these cases the train fare is dearer, in some cases significantly so. I suspect, however, that it's a difference many would be happy to pay, especially when they consider the cost of getting to, or parking at, the airport. Travelling farther down the line – to La Rochelle, Geneva and Bordeaux – the equation starts to tip more strongly in favour of air travel, with a journey time at least two and a half hours faster and return fares about £20 lower. However, you can still do the journey comfortably in a day, and you might even want to consider the attraction of breaking it in Paris, or in Brussels. By spending a night in one of these cities en route, you can make longer rail journeys seem much less of a marathon, as well as enjoying a different dimension to your holiday. Alternative starting and finishing points Of course, the usefulness of any of these comparisons to any one reader is limited, since the length of your journey will depend on where you start from. If you live in the North or West, the train may look an unattractive option to any destination on the Continent, especially if there are flights from a nearby airport. If you live in the south of England, and especially central London, or if you have access to the Eurostar stations at Ebbsfleet and Ashford, then the train really comes into its own. If you want to see journey times at a glance from starting points other than London, the Eurostar website (www.eurostar.co.uk) has an excellent interactive graphic (click on the "Destinations" tab on the home page). This graphic provides another useful insight. It throws up the many destinations that are far easier to reach by train than plane because there are no convenient airports with direct flights. Perhaps the way in which high-speed rail makes the biggest difference to imaginative travellers is in the easy access it offers to beautiful historic cities such as Dijon (4hr 40m), Rouen (4hr 29m), Reims (3hr 45m), Strasbourg (5hr 9m), Antwerp (2hr 53m), Ghent (2hr 58m), Bruges (3hr 25m) and Aachen (3hr 32m). Comparisons For the journey times cited on the right, I have assumed that the traveller is starting and finishing in central London. I have allowed 40 minutes to get to the airport and 90 minutes' check-in time, plus 60 minutes to get through customs and immigration and travel to the centre of the destination. I would say that is pretty generous. If you travel without luggage, and you are the sort of person who is happy to cut check-in times finer than that or you can get to the airport more quickly, simply deduct the appropriate amount of time. Fares quoted are the cheapest returns advertised by Eurostar, and the cheapest returns offered from London airports drawn from a search on the website www.skyscanner.net. I have included the cost of checking in baggage (£18 with easyJet, for example), and any fees for using a debit card to pay for the ticket.