Trains are better than the stress of flying, anyone agree?

[61653 HTAFC]

There is that apprehension about stepping on a plane that you don't get stepping on a train or climbing in your car. I get it too. I'm getting more superstitious, I always take a photo of the plane before I get on because I always take a photo of the plane before I get on. Mrs Troll always says hello and goodbye to the plane. It's to do with a lack of control, I think. But it is totally irrational. I'm significantly more likely to be killed driving to the airport than I ever am on the plane I board once I'm there.

It is strange how as humans, our risk perception occasionally "throws a leg out"! I'm generally more worried about loved ones being in a road accident than them being involved in a plane crash, which matches statistics. But for myself, I'm far more anxious about flying than getting in a car... and that's with the standard of driving demonstrated by minicabs in Batley!

I think that's endemic across all transport modes these days, to be quite honest. The single most unpleasant waiting experience I've had when travelling was waiting to board the Eurostar at Brussels Midi. It depends on so many variables. I've been on the last plane out of Luton at 10pm before and it was lovely, the place was deserted, and I've flown out of there on a Saturday morning at 7am when it best resembled a zoo. Same with Eurostar, a lovely quiet train and quiet wait at St Pancras compared with a long, sweaty wait in that overcrowded cellar at Brussels Midi.

I think some of it (for me at least) is nostalgia. The first two times I flew were on package holiday charter flights as a child (aged 10 and 12 respectively) and I've only flown once on scheduled flights (at the age of 15). Flying as a kid was exciting particularly the first time, but I can't imagine it being anything more than a stressful ordeal as a "grown-up"! Then again, I actually like travelling by train, and that's a big part of why I'd always choose the train if possible.

Clearly the airline industry has changed massively since then both with the rise of low-cost carriers, and increased security measures post-11/9/2001.

Air travel also (for those of us in our mid-30s and above) has (or had!) a degree of prestige about it which, I gather, is largely absent from modern-day short-haul flying. On the other hand, the "glamour" of train travel has also faded... perhaps more so!

 

[marks87]

I've had my seat kicked by a toddler from several times, and you don't need to be sitting next to a grumpy baby for the noise to be a distraction. I don't need the extra legroom, and with an exit row seat, your bag has to go in the overhead bins and the middle seat will always be taken. Its a moot point now, as all of the flights I've been on in the last few years have had allocated seating.

Bit in bold - not true. The last two occasions where I've been sat in an exit row, the middle seat has been unoccupied.

There's actually no requirement that any exit row seats be occupied; just that whoever does sit there must be "willing and able" (and allowed) to perform the necessary duties in the unlikely event of an emergency evacuation.

 

[stu]

Eh, Birmingham to Scotland is 4 hours via the WCML. Flying barely edges that.

I don't live in Birmingham tho, my nearest station is Leamington Spa half an hour away - by the time I've driven there I can also drive to Birmingham Airport. Not to mention the fact a lot of the time I have to change trains and/or stations in Birmingham, so a massive time penalty.

 

[BigCj34]

I don't live in Birmingham tho, my nearest station is Leamington Spa half an hour away - by the time I've driven there I can also drive to Birmingham Airport. Not to mention the fact a lot of the time I have to change trains and/or stations in Birmingham, so a massive time penalty.

Having checked on Rome2rio that does make a lot of sense. The treehugger in me might still get the train if it was for a more leisurely trip but an extra 2h20 does make a difference for business and the generally time-pressed!

 

[flierfy]

I can't believe how many members of a rail forum prefer to fly when we actually live in an age of excellent rail services. It makes me wonder whether this is an aviation forum despite its name. Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today. Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Over here in the east of Germany flying isn't an option anyway. The choice of mode is always one between rail and road. Airports are few and far between and those who are there offer next to no useful services. The railway by contrast is accessible in every town and even some villages. Its services run frequently and as mentioned above are better than ever before.

 

[Robertj21a]

Unfortunately, rail travel in the UK tends to be very expensive, overcrowded and often unreliable. It's not at all surprising that for some of the longer distances (notably London - Scotland and similar) people will go for the much faster, and often much cheaper, option to fly.

 

[Howardh]

For a day off next week I've chosen to fly from Manchester to Southampton for a walk and drink by the Itchen. Train = too long a journey and expensive (£114 ret is the best price on offer although split-ticketing may help); I could have gone to London but the fares offered today aren't much less than the flight to Southampton and back. Once through security the good news is at both ends there's obviously - being domestic - no queues for immigration which normally add on a huge chunk of time to the flight.

 

[fowler9]

I can't believe how many members of a rail forum prefer to fly when we actually live in an age of excellent rail services. It makes me wonder whether this is an aviation forum despite its name. Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today. Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Over here in the east of Germany flying isn't an option anyway. The choice of mode is always one between rail and road. Airports are few and far between and those who are there offer next to no useful services. The railway by contrast is accessible in every town and even some villages. Its services run frequently and as mentioned above are better than ever before.

If I have three days off and I want to go to Prague I'm not getting the train.

 

[BigCj34]

I can't believe how many members of a rail forum prefer to fly when we actually live in an age of excellent rail services. It makes me wonder whether this is an aviation forum despite its name. Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today. Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Over here in the east of Germany flying isn't an option anyway. The choice of mode is always one between rail and road. Airports are few and far between and those who are there offer next to no useful services. The railway by contrast is accessible in every town and even some villages. Its services run frequently and as mentioned above are better than ever before.

Faster, probably, but certainly not as comfortable and affordable as before. People here may like trains but they won't take the train if it is far more expensive and impractical do so against other modes of transport. If there is a direct train and the starting and ending points are close to the stations then the train wins, but if it costs more than flying, is slower overall and has multiple changes it loses out. For those pressed for time an extra 2 hours getting the train is 2 hours lost. If that is the case for rail enthusiasts then Joe average is certainly not going to go out of their way to take one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Presumably the same ‘fraudulent tax exception’ that rail enjoys on its fuel?

 

[sheff1]

Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today.

Maybe so in eastern Germany. Not so in a number of other places.

 

[Norther Monkey]

Bit in bold - not true. The last two occasions where I've been sat in an exit row, the middle seat has been unoccupied.

There's actually no requirement that any exit row seats be occupied; just that whoever does sit there must be "willing and able" (and allowed) to perform the necessary duties in the unlikely event of an emergency evacuation.

I'm not sure if it's a regulatory requirement, but some operators certainly have occupancy of exit rows as an SOP. I've been asked to move to an exit row several times, and seen others asked the same.

I fly every week to commute for work. Now that I'm used to airports and have become more efficient with security etc. (subtle changes in dress and packing make a big difference) I find flying much more enjoyable (tolerable might be a better word) than the train.

My experience is that flights are much less likely to be cancelled or delayed, I always get a seat and anti social behaviour is virtually none existent.

Ironically, the most stressful part of my journey is often cancellations or delays to my train to the airport.

 

[theironroad]

For a day off next week I've chosen to fly from Manchester to Southampton for a walk and drink by the Itchen. Train = too long a journey and expensive (£114 ret is the best price on offer although split-ticketing may help); I could have gone to London but the fares offered today aren't much less than the flight to Southampton and back. Once through security the good news is at both ends there's obviously - being domestic - no queues for immigration which normally add on a huge chunk of time to the flight.

Unless you booked ahead, I'm guessing you didn't get much change from 114 from the flights either. Flybe aren't exactly a low cost carrier.

 

[Howardh]

Unless you booked ahead, I'm guessing you didn't get much change from 114 from the flights either. Flybe aren't exactly a low cost carrier.

Ninety-four smackers, booked last week. Out of the £20 change £7.30 will be the bus/train daysaver to get me to the airport. But it's not really the cash, just that for a day trip I'll get longer at my destination; if you are going on the train Manchestre/London it's a smitch over 2 hours, Manchester to anywhere on the south coast is just a huge chunk of time.

 

[coppercapped]

I can't believe how many members of a rail forum prefer to fly when we actually live in an age of excellent rail services. It makes me wonder whether this is an aviation forum despite its name. Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today. Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Over here in the east of Germany flying isn't an option anyway. The choice of mode is always one between rail and road. Airports are few and far between and those who are there offer next to no useful services. The railway by contrast is accessible in every town and even some villages. Its services run frequently and as mentioned above are better than ever before.

You underestimate the effects of geography.
If one lives on an island then flying is the only, repeat only, reasonable way of travelling to many places if one does not want to be seasick.

Eurostat publishes a range of statistics and the transport area shows that the number of flights per head of the population per year is greatest for those living on islands such as Ireland, Great Britain, Malta and so on as well as long thin countries such as Norway.

Passenger travel by domestic aviation in the UK is limited mainly to the long London - Scotland routes, with some travel from smaller regional airports. A large proportion of internal air travel is made up by people making connections to long distance flights at the major hubs such as Heathrow. Note, however, that there are NO flights to Heathrow from nearby airports such as Southampton, Bristol or Birmingham - surface travel is the only way to reach Heathrow from these places.

It is often suggested that Eurostar should offer regular and more frequent services to destinations other than Paris, Brussels and now Amsterdam. A quick look at the map will show why Eurostar is only competitive for travel to and from the South East of England to nearby destinations on the continent. Glasgow to Copenhagen will always be both faster and cheaper by air than by rail.

 

[Requeststop]

It is strange how as humans, our risk perception occasionally "throws a leg out"! I'm generally more worried about loved ones being in a road accident than them being involved in a plane crash, which matches statistics. But for myself, I'm far more anxious about flying than getting in a car... and that's with the standard of driving demonstrated by minicabs in Batley!



I think some of it (for me at least) is nostalgia. The first two times I flew were on package holiday charter flights as a child (aged 10 and 12 respectively) and I've only flown once on scheduled flights (at the age of 15). Flying as a kid was exciting particularly the first time, but I can't imagine it being anything more than a stressful ordeal as a "grown-up"! Then again, I actually like travelling by train, and that's a big part of why I'd always choose the train if possible.

Clearly the airline industry has changed massively since then both with the rise of low-cost carriers, and increased security measures post-11/9/2001.

Air travel also (for those of us in our mid-30s and above) has (or had!) a degree of prestige about it which, I gather, is largely absent from modern-day short-haul flying. On the other hand, the "glamour" of train travel has also faded... perhaps more so!

I'm a member of flightradar24 which has a personal logging page so you can log your flights, build up a map and follow your statistics. Over the last 48 years, with help from old ticket stubs and old passports, I've logged 354 flights, covered 1,053,815km 1,588 hours in the skies. About 100 flights still to log from the 80's and 90's, and I'm still here. Although flying is (they say) considerably much more safer than when I started regular flying for my work in 1980, these days I find myself thinking when landing that I've made it yet again. My thinking that my odds of not making my destination are shrinking pretty fast.

I've never had that feeling when travelling by train. I still love to travel by train but these days tend to dislike flight travel and the stress I feel at times when making a journey by air.

 

[Requeststop]

I can't believe how many members of a rail forum prefer to fly when we actually live in an age of excellent rail services. It makes me wonder whether this is an aviation forum despite its name. Rail travelling has never been faster, more affordable and more comfortable than it is today. Flying on the other hand is a disgrace, which is only made possible due to a fraudulent tax exception of its fuel.

Over here in the east of Germany flying isn't an option anyway. The choice of mode is always one between rail and road. Airports are few and far between and those who are there offer next to no useful services. The railway by contrast is accessible in every town and even some villages. Its services run frequently and as mentioned above are better than ever before.

It is indeed a matter of geography, and unfortunately, development of infrastructure is not equal all over the world as you have pointed out. The size of a nation may not be a help either, and sometimes flying is the only option even if you like it or not. For my sins, I'm working in Papua New Guinea. From Port Moresby to the second City, Lae, there is no road for the 300km journey. So two options. Fly, or by sea which can take two days on a ferry chock a block full of people.

Recently I've had a bit of time in Australia, having to work in Karratha in Northern West Australia. Flying is the only option. For me Brisbane to Perth; 6 plus hours, an overnight stay and then to Karratha, another two and a half hours flying. (You can only get to Karratha via Perth).

By the way, the British public are subsidising the European rail systems with the money the European franchise holders are taking back from the profits they make in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm a member of flightradar24 which has a personal logging page so you can log your flights, build up a map and follow your statistics. Over the last 48 years, with help from old ticket stubs and old passports, I've logged 354 flights, covered 1,053,815km 1,588 hours in the skies. About 100 flights still to log from the 80's and 90's, and I'm still here. Although flying is (they say) considerably much more safer than when I started regular flying for my work in 1980, these days I find myself thinking when landing that I've made it yet again. My thinking that my odds of not making my destination are shrinking pretty fast.

It is slightly odd that people think like that.

I've done about 300 flight legs in my lifetime and the only time anything even vaguely "interesting" happened was a go-around on landing at Luton due to an aircraft too slow leaving the runway, and if I'm honest it was quite fun, you don't often get full power and that level of climb.

Most pilots and cabin crew will in their lifetime encounter no serious safety incidents. They will do even more flights than I've done.

I reckon you're OK, really

 

[Howardh]

It is slightly odd that people think like that.

I've done about 300 flight legs in my lifetime and the only time anything even vaguely "interesting" happened was a go-around on landing at Luton due to an aircraft too slow leaving the runway, and if I'm honest it was quite fun, you don't often get full power and that level of climb.

Most pilots and cabin crew will in their lifetime encounter no serious safety incidents. They will do even more flights than I've done.

I reckon you're OK, really

I've read statistically you have more chance of being killed by a meteorite than being in a plane - although I can't recall anyone (save for all those dinasours) being killed by one, and one hundred lost their lives in a plane crash yesterday *puzzled*.

But still, every time you get on to a plane it's about a one-in-five million chance of being killed. Clearly there are external factors such as the country you are flying from/to as some may still have safety issues; also the type of weather you are flying in to and the arrival airport. So Manchester to Mallorca in high summer should give you better odds than Pyongang to Nepal in mid-winter!

But for me the point that in an air crash you are (a) statistically more unlikely to be in one than a car or train crash and (b) probably killed instantly so no worried about being in agony for some time. Also, the flight (say) between Manchester and Nice is 2.5 hours, whereas on a train it's roughly 5 times longer so five times more likely to be involved in a crash!

If you get a hire-car at the airport you are more likely to be killed in that!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those stats don’t really work, as it’s take offs and landings that pose the highest risk. Without outside interference almost no plane crashes happen in level flight - you’re miles from hitting anything, the engines aren’t stressed, the airframe isn’t stressed etc. So the odds for a long haul will be about the same as a short haul.

 

[coppercapped]

By the way, the British public are subsidising the European rail systems with the money the European franchise holders are taking back from the profits they make in the UK.

This old chestnut again, hmmm!

I suggest that you check your figures. Dutch Railways have lent its Scottish subsidiary some £10 million to help it survive, DB Cargo is in receipt of some support from its parent, DB AG, and profits at GTR have not been all they were hoping.

Anyway, if you look at the size of the financial support the European railways get from their respective governments, any profits made in the UK are a tiny proportion of the whole.

 

[fowler9]

I'm a member of flightradar24 which has a personal logging page so you can log your flights, build up a map and follow your statistics. Over the last 48 years, with help from old ticket stubs and old passports, I've logged 354 flights, covered 1,053,815km 1,588 hours in the skies. About 100 flights still to log from the 80's and 90's, and I'm still here. Although flying is (they say) considerably much more safer than when I started regular flying for my work in 1980, these days I find myself thinking when landing that I've made it yet again. My thinking that my odds of not making my destination are shrinking pretty fast.

I've never had that feeling when travelling by train. I still love to travel by train but these days tend to dislike flight travel and the stress I feel at times when making a journey by air.

Kind of makes you wonder how my sister is still alive when she flies every day of her working life almost. I'd be more worried about being killed on the road on your way to the airport or in your kitchen before you leave the house.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I've read statistically you have more chance of being killed by a meteorite than being in a plane - although I can't recall anyone (save for all those dinosaurs) being killed by one, and one hundred lost their lives in a plane crash yesterday *puzzled*.

That's because of the way statistics work - when there is an asteroid impact it will kill many millions in one go.

 

[306024]

If I have three days off and I want to go to Prague I'm not getting the train.

Spookily I do have three days off and am going to Prague next week. The route is fly London City Airport to Berlin and then one of my favourite train journeys from Berlin via Dresden to Prague. Best of both worlds.

As for the original question, I think stress is a state of mind. Travelling by any means doesn’t stress me at all, thoroughly enjoy it. Alternatively a woman at Stratford was in a complete flap the other day looking for her train (yes Stratford isn’t the easiest station to navigate) and took quite a bit of calming. A lot must be down to the temperament you are born with.

 

[BigCj34]

Spookily I do have three days off and am going to Prague next week. The route is fly London City Airport to Berlin and then one of my favourite train journeys from Berlin via Dresden to Prague. Best of both worlds.

As for the original question, I think stress is a state of mind. Travelling by any means doesn’t stress me at all, thoroughly enjoy it. Alternatively a woman at Stratford was in a complete flap the other day looking for her train (yes Stratford isn’t the easiest station to navigate) and took quite a bit of calming. A lot must be down to the temperament you are born with.

Stratford station is a terrible place to wait for a train. No waiting rooms, just a platform side shelter without proper seats. Had an advance booking from there recently so couldn't get an earlier train going to Colchester.

I think stress is the wrong word to use for flying, more about hassle, in frequently having to get up and down to get to the airport, board the plane, etc. I don't particularly like flying but there is very little stressful about it unless you are about to miss the plane!

 

[306024]

Hassle is indeed a better word to describe flying. But security screening isn’t optional so you just have to take it in your stride. Returning to the UK, Border Control can be hit or miss. Have sailed through on occasions, on others been in a huge queue, you never can tell.

 

[Requeststop]

It is slightly odd that people think like that.

I've done about 300 flight legs in my lifetime and the only time anything even vaguely "interesting" happened was a go-around on landing at Luton due to an aircraft too slow leaving the runway, and if I'm honest it was quite fun, you don't often get full power and that level of climb.

Most pilots and cabin crew will in their lifetime encounter no serious safety incidents. They will do even more flights than I've done.

I reckon you're OK, really

Kind of you to pass that re-assurance. There was a time that I was assured that there had been a flight accident a day or so before I flew. Once a Portuguese Prime Minister was killed. Better him than me I thought. My odds had improved suddenly. Sounds bad I know.
Twice overshot the runway at Heathrow due to an another aircraft on the runway. An Irish guy at the back calling out to take us back to Bahrain and for the drinks trolley to be brought back. Another time coming into land at Frankfurt very close to a forest with the runway 500 metres or so to our left! We were flown to Amsterdam. Not likely to happen on a train!

Then it's reported that in 2017 there was no passenger fatalities on air flights at all. Hmmmmmmm, that gets my brain working overtime. Then sadly, there has been the accidents in Katmandu and Havana. ....................... As I said earlier, I choose my life and work and have to fly. Still prefer rail travel. A lot more comforting.

 

[yorksrob]

Spookily I do have three days off and am going to Prague next week. The route is fly London City Airport to Berlin and then one of my favourite train journeys from Berlin via Dresden to Prague. Best of both worlds.

As for the original question, I think stress is a state of mind. Travelling by any means doesn’t stress me at all, thoroughly enjoy it. Alternatively a woman at Stratford was in a complete flap the other day looking for her train (yes Stratford isn’t the easiest station to navigate) and took quite a bit of calming. A lot must be down to the temperament you are born with.

And also ticket type - It's more stressful looking for your train if you're on an AP and have to catch that one.

And Stratford is a bizarre station to negotiate. I find it a lot less stressful commencing my journey at Liverpool Street.

 

[al78]

That's because of the way statistics work - when there is an asteroid impact it will kill many millions in one go.

The wqay statistics work, some people abuse them. I don't know why you bring up the most extreme example of something not far off an extinction level event, something that really does have an infinitesimally small chance of happening in anyones life, so small it can be neglected. It is almost certain that meteorite in this context refers to the small chunks of rock that might kill one person if it landed directly on them.

 

[Howardh]

The wqay statistics work, some people abuse them. I don't know why you bring up the most extreme example of something not far off an extinction level event, something that really does have an infinitesimally small chance of happening in anyones life, so small it can be neglected. It is almost certain that meteorite in this context refers to the small chunks of rock that might kill one person if it landed directly on them.

Think the best statistic was that sober drivers cause 85% of all fatal accidents, whereas drunks cause 15%!! Clearly if we believe in statistics the world would be a safer place if we all downed a bottle of red before grabbing the keys!