Travellers are more likely to get a train between cities than fly despite longer travel times, new poll finds

TRAVELLERS are more likely to get a train between cities than fly – despite expecting it to cost more and take longer. A poll of 2,000 adults found 60 per cent would consider going by rail for journeys such as London to Glasgow and Aberdeen to Manchester. Around 54 per cent of people think trains offer more choice and flexibility Almost 33 per cent of people find trains more relaxing than other modes of transport In comparison, only 13 per cent would opt for flying between cities. While 54 per cent think wheels on tracks offer more choice and flexibility than wings, and 61 per cent consider it to be better for the environment. Sign up for The Sun newsletter Thank you! This is also supported by the Steer report, which found nearly four in 10 (37 per cent) believe train journeys are more reliable for longer domestic journeys than flights. While 33 per cent find it more relaxing than other modes of transport, according to the General Public Tracker. A trip between London and Manchester by rail costs around £88 Figures show a flight between two cities costs £115 The research was published by transport consultancy Steer and commissioned by Rail Delivery Group as part of the wider ‘Clearing the Air’ report which compared rail and domestic air travel across seven key GB routes. When comparing data from the rail industry’s Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Overnight (LENNON) system with air fare data from the Official Airline Guide (OAG), it found that despite travellers expecting a train journey between London and Manchester to cost £88, this trip set passengers back an average of £45 in 2025. While OAG figures show a flight between the two cities cost £115, before extras such as seats or luggage – more than the £82.55 travellers expected it to cost. Jacqueline Starr, executive chair and chief executive officer at Rail Delivery Group, said: “This research highlights the benefits rail can offer passengers, from lower costs and lower carbon emissions to more time that can be spent relaxing or staying productive. Most read in The Sun “With frequent services connecting cities across Britain, rail offers a convenient, flexible and attractive way to travel”. The research also found across the routes studied, passengers saved an average of £147 per journey by travelling via tracks instead of in the sky. After the additional costs of the journey are included such as baggage, transfers and airport charges, this means travelling by plane costs 71 per cent more on average than travelling by train.While those travelling between London and Newcastle can save an average of an hour going by train instead of flying. For a business traveller making the London–Newcastle journey once a week, that adds up to the equivalent of a full working day every month. The report also claims an estimated 93 per cent of a rail journey can be spent working, reading, relaxing or staying connected compared with just 33 per cent of a domestic flight journey once checking in, security and boarding time are taken into account. As a result, passengers travelling by train gain an average of three hours more usable time per journey than those who fly. The research comes as the Government rolls out its Great British Summer Savings scheme, with a temporary VAT reduction on eligible family attractions and days out helping households get more value from leisure trips across Great Britain this summer. Andrew Stokes, director at VisitEngland, added: “There’s something special about visiting the treasures of our nations and regions by train. “Whether it’s a cultural city break, a set jetting stay or a trip to one of our picturesque coastal or rural destinations, travelling by rail offers an easy, efficient and environmentally friendly way to explore more and enjoy spectacular scenery along the way.” Comment now