Travelling by rail in the UK can cost almost twice as much as taking a flight, new research reveals.
This means that people face a “near-impossible trade-off between low fares and reducing their carbon footprint,” according as study by consumer group Which?.
It compared the cost of flying to travelling by rail on the same dates on ten popular domestic routes.
The snapshot investigation found that in eight instances it was more expensive to take the train, costing 49% more on average than flying. One train route cost more than two and a half times the cost of an equivalent flight.
But the CO2 emissions caused by flying produced on average six times as much per passenger than those caused by taking the train.
The biggest price difference was found for a return journey from Birmingham to Newquay, with a flight costing £67 and a train on the same dates £180, or £133 more.
The train route Which? looked at also involved making two changes and, including the return journey, would take more than ten hours longer than flying in total.
However, flying this route would emit more than five times as much CO2.
All of the carbon emissions on the flight routes the consumer organisation checked were more than five times the amount created by taking the corresponding train route, with some airline routes emitting more than six times as much carbon.
The flight routes with the highest carbon emissions were Edinburgh to Bournemouth and Glasgow to Southampton.
Taking a return trip by train from Edinburgh to Bournemouth would only emit around a fifth of the emissions created by flying but the journey would cost £70 more than flying and take 14 hours longer.
The biggest difference in carbon emissions was on the Bristol to Newcastle route, with the flight route emitting more than six times the amount of carbon compared to the train.
However, the train journey would cost nearly twice as much as flying, with a flights starting at £87 compared to £172 by rail. The total journey, including both the outward trip and the return, would also take more than six hours longer by train than it would by flying.
Which? Travel editor Rory Boland said: “As the pandemic continues to cause uncertainty for international travel, many of us are taking holidays closer to home this year.
“Travellers who choose to take the train face significantly higher fares and journey times, putting those who want to lessen their environmental impact at a disadvantage.
“There are steps that people can take to reduce the cost of travelling by train.
“Take the time to compare dates and times to see if cheaper fares are available, and look into what railcards you might be eligible for to save up to a third on train travel. You may be able to make further savings by checking if split-ticketing is an option on your chosen route.”