This guide was written for members of CIVIS. This is Europe's Civic University Alliance. For this reason, specific examples are for its European Member Universities (Aix-Marseille Université, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, University of Bucharest, Université libre de Bruxelles, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Sapienza Università di Roma, Stockholm University, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, University of Glasgow, Paris Lodron University of Salzburg and University of Lausanne). However, even if you are not a part of CIVIS, I hope that you will find the guide helpful.
Why travel by rail for work?
Travelling by rail to reduce your carbon footprint
A very good reason to travel by rail for work is that
it reduces your carbon footprint (compared with flying, or driving). This is a
good idea because by reducing your carbon footprint you are contributing
towards solving the climate crisis, both directly (by adding less carbon
dioxide to the air) and indirectly (by raising awareness about the climate
crisis).
For many of us who live and work in Europe, flying
less is the one single action we can take that will have the largest positive
impact on our carbon footprint. For my own country (Sweden), on average, our consumption-based emissions are
(according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) 8 tons per
person-year and our emissions from flying are 1 ton per person-year. For quite
a few of us, our flying emissions are far higher.
Here are carbon footprints for return flights from
Stockholm to the other European cities in CIVIS, expressed in kilograms of
carbon dioxide, and a (very approximate) estimate of the number of hamburgers
you would need to eat if your (rather odd) goal was to achieve a similar carbon
footprint (which is not recommended, either for the climate or for your
wellbeing):
Athens – 630 kg (equivalent to eating 359–609
hamburgers) *
Brussels – 332 kg (equivalent to eating 189–321
hamburgers) *
Bucharest – 453 kg (equivalent to eating 258–438
hamburgers) *
Glasgow – 356 kg (equivalent to eating 203–344 hamburgers)
*
Lausanne – 436 kg (equivalent to eating 248–421
hamburgers) *
Madrid – 666 kg (equivalent to eating 379–643
hamburgers) *
Marseille – 513 kg (equivalent to eating 292–496
hamburgers) *
Rome – 518 kg (equivalent to eating 295–500
hamburgers) *
Salzburg – 348 kg (equivalent to eating 198–336
hamburgers) *
Tübingen – 347 kg (equivalent to eating 198–335
hamburgers) *
* Numbers of hamburgers were calculated based on
the amount of beef in a standard hamburger according to a well-known hamburger
restaurant chain and the emissions range for beef on the Swedish market
according to the Swedish Food Agency.
Taking the train for the same journeys reduces these
carbon footprints to 16–57 % of the carbon footprint of the same journey by
plane:
Athens – 361 kg (57 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Brussels – 50 kg (15 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Bucharest – 134 kg (30 % of the carbon footprint for
the same journey by plane)
Glasgow – 103 kg (29 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Lausanne – 71 kg (16 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Madrid – 165 kg (25 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Marseille – 116 kg (23 % of the carbon footprint for
the same journey by plane)
Rome – 107 kg (19 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Salzburg – 66 kg (19 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
Tübingen – 55 kg (16 % of the carbon footprint for the
same journey by plane)
This is true, even if a route, most of which is by
train, also includes a ferry crossing, for example, Stockholm to Athens:
120 kg – Stockholm – Bari – Stockholm by train
230 kg – Bari – Patras – Bari by ferry
11 kg – Patras – Athens – Patras by bus and train
361 kg
– Stockholm – Athens – Stockholm by train, ferry and bus
630 kg
– Stockholm – Athens – Stockholm by plane
What about driving?
Driving is seldom better than the train (even if the
car is electric), and unless you are 3 or 4, flying can be better. Take, for
example, Stockholm to Brussels:
50 kg – by train
332 kg – by plane
732 kg – by car with one passenger
369 kg – by car with two passengers
248 kg – by car with three passengers
188 kg– by car with four passengers
73 kg – by
electric car with four passengers
Where do the
numbers come from?
All of the examples in this chapter were calculated
using an excellent carbon footprint calculator, which was created by
researchers at Chalmers University of Technology. I choose this calculator
because the authors are fully transparent about their methodology. Also, the
authors make good cases for each of the numbers used in their calculations.
I used the calculator “as is” with the exception of
ferries. The app calculates emissions from ferries for a car and passengers. I
used the authors input data to calculate emissions for a passenger travelling
without a car.
For your own journeys, I recommend comparing carbon
footprints using this calculator, which you can find here: Travel and Climate. What you will almost always find is that rail is the
best option for reducing your carbon footprint.
You can use the calculator “as is” or you can tweak it
so that you get a more accurate carbon footprint for your journey. Here are a
few “tweaks”:
Trains – The
default setting used to calculate emissions from trains is to assume that the
train you are travelling on is one of the 80 % of trains in Europe that run on
electricity. The CO2
emissions for each person-kilometre are set to 7 grammes for Scandinavia except
Denmark and to 26 grammes for Denmark and the rest of Europe. The reason for
the difference relates to how the electricity is produced, i.e. How much electricity
is produced by burning fossil fuels? Emissions from diesel trains are much
higher (86 grammes of CO2 for each person-kilometre). You might want
to make this correction if your Copenhagen – Hamburg train is one of the Danish
ones (which are diesel), rather than the German ones (which are electric).
Cars – In
addition to considering the number of passengers occupying a car (which majorly
affects per person CO2 emissions), you might want to note that the
default setting used to calculate emissions from cars is to assume that the car
you are travelling in is medium-sized and it runs on diesel. You can adjust the
size of the car and the fuel type to more accurately compare the carbon
footprint of a journey by train with one with a specific car.
Planes – The
default setting for planes is economy class. As many business travellers use
economy premium or business class, one might want to switch to either of these
options for a fairer comparison with rail travel. The respective CO2 emissions per
person-kilometre are 127, 155 and 285 grammes for economy, economy premium and
business classes. The difference arises because of the amount of floor space a
passenger occupies (business class = larger seats, further apart).
Ferries – As the authors point out, choosing the “right” number
for ferries is challenging. This is because ferries carry freight and
passengers, and the carbon footprint of the ferry crossing needs to be
apportioned between them somehow. This apportioning can be based on floor
space occupied by freight/passengers, weight of freight/passengers
or revenue earned from freight/passengers. The respective CO2
emissions for each person-kilometre are 274 grammes, 40 grammes or 186 grammes.
The authors have opted for revenue earned by the ferry company because it
“drives their ongoing operations.” For comparison, CO2 emissions per
person-kilometre for flying (economy class) is, according to the authors, 127
grammes. This means that the carbon footprint of flying for a journey is less
than taking a ferry for exactly the same journey.
Travelling by rail to raise awareness about the
climate crisis
If we’re going to be honest about it. The difference
one individual can make by taking the trains instead of flying can never be
more than a “drop in the ocean” compared to the massive task of reaching net
zero emissions (which is, quite simply, essential for the sake of just about
everything that lives on Earth).
So, why do it?
My reason is quite simple. I am a researcher working
on, and communicating about, the climate crisis. If I were to fly, knowing
perfectly well that my life circumstances make it fully possible for me to take
the train, I would feel like a doctor walking blissfully through a corona ward
early on in the pandemic without a face mask. The signal I would be sending out
would be all wrong. Whatever words I might say, my actions would say that I did
not feel that the climate crisis is all that bad. This would be exactly the
opposite of the message I need to convey. Thus, for me, flying (especially for
work) is not an option.
I do want to make really clear that very few
researchers are in as privileged a situation as I am. Many of my colleagues are
at career and life stages which make flying a necessity if they are to be able
to carry on doing research. And, I also want to make clear, that without the
research that has been done and the research that will be done, there will be
no “whistle blowers” to keep making clear for the world that the climate crisis
is very real, very dangerous, and very much happening here and now.
What if I did not do research on, and communicate
about, the climate crisis? Would I take the train? Would it help? I am fairly
certain that the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.”
My wife is also a researcher. Her research is on
genetic factors behind Multiple Sclerosis, i.e., nothing to do with climate.
She is a PI for several European initiatives, which means lots of meetings in
different places across Europe. Sometimes she flies, but rarely. Most often,
she takes the train. And when she gets off the train at a business meeting in
Milan, having travelled there from Valencia, her colleagues (understandably)
ask “Why?” And from that point onwards, a dialogue has started, and an
awareness of the climate crisis grows in completely new circles. And then other
colleagues of hers take the train, and climate awareness spreads like rings on water.
It will be the same for you. So, yes, by taking the
train, you will make a difference.
Travelling by rail because it’s enjoyable
I often say to myself that if the climate crisis
miraculously disappeared, I would carry on taking the train.
Why?
The answer is quite simple. I enjoy it.
And I certainly prefer it to flying!
Picture the 2-hour check-in and the slow-moving queue
at Arlanda Airport. Picture having your bag weighed and finding that it is one
kilogram over, so you can either take something out and stuff it in your carry
on, leave it behind, or pay an extra fee. Picture security and cramming
toiletries into a one litre plastic bag. And picture “duty free” – shops
selling stuff that (to be honest) you don’t want to buy at prices that “duty free”
or otherwise, seem quite high. And then what about that middle seat in row 29
which you failed to avoid? And then there is trying to sleep in an airplane
seat. And if that’s not enough, when you get off the plane, your first welcome
is the baggage hall. Picture yourself waiting for your bag and, when the band
final stops and it still hasn’t arrived, filling in that generic form, before
stopping at a convenience store to pick up a toothbrush and a few other
essentials, knowing full well that you will be back at home before your bag
reaches your destination.
(The one part I do miss is take-off. Just for a second
one feels the magic of flying.)
Compare flying with the simplicity of arriving at
Stockholm Central Station, 10 minutes before departure time. Walking on to the
platform. Boarding the train.
Placing your own bag on the luggage rack above your
seat. And that’s it. You’re on your way. And then there is the journey. By day
– an office with an ever-changing view. By night – a meal with a glass of wine
in the restaurant car, before going to bed in an en suite cabin, and
awaking, rested, somewhere else in the world.
(Of course, it doesn’t always work like that. More on
that in the section on “Missed connections”.)
Tempted? Then read on.
In the next section, we will look at planning your
work trip by train.
But first, let’s take a few moments to consider
reasons for not travelling by rail for work.
Why not to travel by rail for work
Not travelling by rail because it’s expensive
It is. Whatever anyone tells you. Taking the train is
almost always more expensive than flying.
Here is a comparison for Stockholm to Brussels for a
midweek 2-day (lunch-to-lunch) work meeting. The journey by plane is Tuesday to
Thursday, whereas the journey by train is Monday to Friday. I have assumed one
passenger with a check-in bag, and I “booked” one month ahead.
Here’s what I got for “economy/second class”:
By plane, with airport transfers, refundable (for a
fee) – 3400 SEK
By train, with overnights in Hamburg*, Interrail –
6800 SEK
By train, with overnights in Hamburg*, non-refundable
– 7200 SEK
By train, with overnights in Hamburg*, refundable – 10
800 SEK
And here’s what I got for “business/first class”:
By plane with airport transfers, refundable – 4700 SEK
By train with overnights in Hamburg*, Interrail – 7800
SEK
By train with overnights in Hamburg*, non-refundable –
8500 SEK
By train with overnights in Hamburg*, refundable – 14
800 SEK
* I used the best price for one hotel night within walking
distance of Hamburg Central Station and with a customer review score above 8.
This was 1500 SEK.
Yes, one can miss out the overnight stay in Hamburg
and get to Brussels in one day by train, but if you do so, you’ll arrive close
to midnight (in the unlikely event that you don’t miss any of the overly tight
connections), and you’ll still need to pay for the extra hotel nights in
Amsterdam.
And, yes, I could have chosen different dates or a
different route, but the overall result is unlikely to change: Flying is almost
always (quite a lot) cheaper.
That taking the train is more expensive than flying
might or might not be a problem if you are travelling for work. More and more
businesses are proactively encouraging rail travel despite the extra cost. If your
business isn’t, maybe it’s time to suggest it? It’s a great way for a business
to profile that it cares for the environment. Of course, one can question why
it costs more and why, for example, we subsidize flying when we know about its
very high carbon footprint, which we also know is bad for the climate. But
these kind of questions are not the subject of this guide …
Not travelling by rail because it takes a long time
It does. It is (almost) always faster to fly, for longer distances across Europe, even accounting for
getting to the airport and for painfully long check-in times.
Take the example of travelling from Stockholm for the midweek meeting in Brussels, I
just wrote about. If you fly, it’s 3 days (2 nights) away from home. If you
take the train, it’s 5 days (4 nights) away from home. I chose midweek. If the
meeting was earlier in the week, a journey by train would need to begin at the
weekend. And this was a fairly easy example. Try getting from Stockholm to Athens
(comfortably) by train (and ferry). It took me four days. Flying would have
taken 8 hours, even accounting for airport transfers, check-in and baggage reclaim.
Even if your university (or other business) is willing to cover the extra
cost of rail travel, not everyone can be away from home for the extra days. For
example, many of us have kids, who also need us. If your life situation is such
that you simply don’t have the extra days, please don’t feel bad about flying.
There are lots of other ways of being a part of the solution to the climate
crisis.
However, one thing universities (and other businesses) can do to make rail
travel easier is to think carefully about when meetings are scheduling. If I am expected to be at a steering committee meeting in Stockholm on
Monday afternoon and an education council meeting in Brussels on Tuesday or
Wednesday, I cannot take the train, even if cost is not an issue.
There simply isn’t enough time to get from Stockholm to Brussels (comfortably)
by train. I can’t make a train go any faster
…
Not travelling by rail for medical reasons
There can be numerous medical reasons why rail travel
simply won’t work and flying can be a better option.
Physical health issues can make rail travel
challenging or verging on impossible. For example, all journeys from Stockholm
to another part of university will require traveling between Copenhagen and
Hamburg. To do this with a wheelchair or in need of assistance begins with
contacting Danish Railways (DSB) Customer Centre International to request
disability assistance, which (according to their website) can only be done after
booking tickets (which I read as you commit yourself to paying for a ticket before
you know if the assistance you need is actually available). They also claim
that wheelchair spaces are limited and that there are size restrictions and
that although a “companion” can be provided to assist you, this service is not
available for Interrail passengers.
Mental health issues can also make rail travel
challenging. For example, railway stations are busy places with lots of noise.
They can be stressful environments, sometimes more so than airports, which are
not always conducive for persons with certain forms of neurodiversity.
If a physical or mental health issue makes rail travel
challenging, while flying is still “doable”, fly, and don’t feel bad about it.
Not travelling by rail because you don’t know how to
This is one of the most common reasons for not
travelling by rail, and it’s no surprise.
It’s a jungle
out there. Instead of going online, entering which airport you will be leaving
from, and which one you are going to, choosing your ticket and paying, an equivalent
route by train, arranged so that the trip will be a comfortable one, most often
involves visiting multiple websites from multiple providers and piecing it all
together oneself (or getting someone else to do this for you).
Unlike
the other reasons I have mentioned in this chapter, not travelling by rail
because one doesn’t know how to do so comfortably can be overcome, and
overcoming it is the purpose of this guide, so please do read on …
