Beats flying… doesn’t it?

Picture the scene: along with a hundred others, you are crammed into a confined space an hour later than expected, tripping over endless children and suitcases and wishing that the man next you would stop telling you about his grandchildren and leave you to travel in peace. Sound familiar? In Britain at least, it is probably fair to say that the train is hardly a haven of tranquillity. For me, nothing has ever felt the same since a raucous drunken woman chugged down a few too many Stella cans whilst I attempted to work beside her. Needless to say, this experience didn’t exactly enhance the quality of said work. In short, most of us will have found that on British trains, the Quiet Zone could probably find itself sued under the Trade Descriptions Act.

This being the case, it could be wondered why anyone takes the trouble of travelling by train at all. Appearances, however, can be deceptive. It is perhaps the case that, for us students at least, there are few alternatives to train travel. The cost of maintaining a car is hideously expensive, and the private helicopter option isn’t exactly an affordable one either. There may be little alternative to rail travel, and when considering the environmental impact of certain modes of transport, this should be considered a plus.

For those who aren’t too keen on facing the guilt for climate change, train travel is an excellent option: after cycling and walking (which, let’s face it, a lot of us are too lazy to often consider), train travel is the most carbon-efficient mode of transport. Making the decision to travel by train from London to Edinburgh will reduce C02 emissions by 87 percent of that produced by air travel, and 42 percent of emissions produced by car travel. While even the average car produces 133g of CO2 per passenger kilometre, train travel produces the comparatively small amount of 60g of C02. Considering the expectation that up to 24,000 vulnerable citizens are to die prematurely as a result of exposure to air pollution, any form of transport which produces few polluting gases should surely be welcomed with open arms. For those who spend a good deal of time contemplating their carbon footprint, it might therefore be worth replacing a few car journeys with trips to the railway station.

{{ quote In 2006, a survey by a rail watchdog revealed that 7 out of 10 leisure passengers had opted out of train travel as a result of ticket prices}}

In which case, should we not be desperate to incite the nation to take up the more environmentally friendly option of train travel? Apparently not. In 2006, a survey by a rail watchdog revealed that 7 out of 10 leisure passengers had opted out of train travel as a result of ticket prices, 44 percent of whom then turned to car travel as an alternative. Of the 2000 passengers questioned by consumer body Passenger Focus, almost 80 percent expressed an intention of using the train more regularly in the event of a price reduction.

The response of Network Rail only four years later? An improvement programme using £35bn of public funds and the announcement that by 2014, fare payers will be providing 75 percent of the cost of operating the rail network. These reforms are accompanied by (you guessed it) an increase in prices.

I was recently horrified on the discovery that visits to my (thanks to National Rail) increasingly poor boyfriend would be costing an extra £3 a time (even when in possession of a costly 16-25 Railcard, might I add), but the phrase “getting off lightly” has perhaps never been more appropriate. Since Sunday 2 January 2011, rail fares have increased by an average of 6.2 percent, with holders of season tickets noting even more dramatic increases in fare prices. Commuters travelling from Canterbury to London have noticed the price of their season ticket rise from £3840 at this time last year to a frightening £4328: an increase of 12.7 percent. When considering that over 10 percent of Londoners use the train 3 or more times a week, it is clear that it will be more than simply the odd businessman who will be affected by the changes. There is also concern about train prices outside of London: those travelling from Bristol to Edinburgh, for example, will have to foot a further £11.70 for every return ticket they purchase. As a result, campaign group Railfuture is warning that ticket price increases could force passengers onto the roads as an alternative: an option we surely do not want to be encouraging.

Train passengers have therefore noticed a considerable rise in ticket prices in recent weeks, but what is the reason behind this? What are these mysterious “improvements” of which we speak? I beg you not to entertain high hopes. The main change is to be introduced in a new high-speed railway line from London to Birmingham, which will bring journey times between the two cities to around 49 minutes. As appealing as this may sound, I remain unconvinced that this is the best use of our money. At present, it is possible to travel from London Euston to Birmingham New Street in 1 hour 22 minutes, meaning that this billion-pound improvement programme will save the train passenger around half an hour, yet I think I can speak for most passengers when I say that it is preferable to spend an extra half hour on the train and have prices kept as low as possible.

On 20 December last year, Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond outlined plans to compensate those whose property will lose value as a result of the new railway. On 7 January. the government then announced that 2 million new trees are to be planted alongside the new railway, in order to block out noise and to keep the trains out of sight. Hammond displayed an intention to ensure that the government will “do everything possible to try and reduce the impact of the line”. These concessions clearly display the level of unrest amongst those living closest to the site of the high-speed railway, and the consultation on the route, opening in February, could even bring further changes. As with all renovation work, the creation of the new railway is likely to entail a great deal of noise and unsightly views, and many of those who are to be affected by the plans are naturally ensuring that any disadvantages are well recognised. A spokesman for the HS2 Action Alliance sees the railway plans as a “wrong investment priority for Britain” and despairs that every household is being forced to spend £1,000 on a railway we “do not need”: it appears that the government will be very lucky if opposition stops here.

Having reached Birmingham, an investment which will be costing £17bn in itself, plans are to extend the rail links to Manchester and Leeds. To add insult to injury, it has been calculated that journeys on the new high-speed railway will produce 60 percent more carbon than conventional rail travel, and 35 percent more even than car journeys. Of those expected to use this new railway, over 90 percent are expected to switch from less polluting transport alternatives. Perhaps now is the time to retract my comment that train travel is a more environmentally friendly option after all.

It is clear that there are many benefits to train travel as an institution. As unpleasant as the journey may be in itself, trains enable you to avoid traffic (always a major bonus), save time and use a form of transport more environmentally friendly than most. Train travel is therefore both convenient and has a less damaging effect on the environment, for which it must be praised. However, the train service was far from being completely unacceptable before the proposed changes. Will the new high-speed railway transform the lives of millions? I remain unconvinced. This new railway undermines the main reasons why we are to admire train travel: why replace a more carbon-efficient mode of transport with one which will cause more damage to the environment even than travelling by car? This new railway will be no more advantageous than the current one: although it may save passengers a few minutes of their precious time, all passengers, whether prospective users of the new high speed railway or not, are being forced to foot the cost of the changes. Considering that passengers have been calling for a reduction in ticket prices for years, these changes can only be viewed as a kick in the teeth, and with the first train due to operate from 2025, it can hardly be argued that the end is in sight for farepayers. We would all welcome an improved railway, but not at any cost. And so we come to the crucial question: is it worth travelling by train in the future? The answer is no: you’re better off bloody walking.