The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

For longer distance flights: Wake up at 07:00, take the train to the airport at 08:00, take the 10:30 flight from Schiphol to Barcelona and get out of the airport at 15:00. Take a taxi to the city center and arrive at 15:30. Or take the 08:00 train, sit back, relax and get off right in the center of the city at 20:00. You have may lost a couple of hours but you could sit down and read a book the entire time. Luggage is easier. Nobody groping you or giving you troubles about fluids. And good food in the trains too.

Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.

According to Google Maps, every train itinerary from Amsterdam to Barcelona in the morning has 2-3 transfers, with the last one being a bus. And the shortest possible duration is just over 13.5 hours, not 12 like you said.

The transfers and bus are still required if you go with a night train.

The last bus bit is only necessary if you absolutely must go to the Barcelona Estació de França station. The train from Toulouse stops in Barcelona Sants station.

The fastest train connection from Amsterdam Centraal to Bercelona Sants takes 11:15.

The night train option means you leave Amsterdam at 17:15, and end up in Barcelona before noon. That's not too bad, and you get to see a lot of nice scenery in the train from Amsterdam to Paris and Toulouse to Barcelona (the Paris to Toulouse being the night train).

(Edit: you can check the itinerary on sncf.fr, amongst others)

I looked it up for tomorrow. 11:15 Amsterdam - 14:35 Paris Nord. Then 16:07 Paris Gare de Lyon - 22:44 Barcelona Sants. From Nord to Gare de Lyon you can walk, take a train or bus, depending on the weather. Have some late lunch or early dinner at a cafe and enjoy Paris for a bit. The total journey will take you 11 hours and 29 minutes.

I'm not sure about the night trains and if they are still an option. Perhaps there are some improvements possible there, yes.

Google Maps does not have all the trains. Use a dedicated train planner like https://www.thetrainline.com/ which works great for EU trains.

Yes, I am not bothered by that. I'm bothered by the price. The time is usually fine; there are plugs in the train and it's comfortable. But for trips I do Malaga-Amsterdam or Malaga-London return we are talking 400-600 for train vs <150 for a flight. Bus is the same price as a plane ticket but unsafer (than both train & flight), longer and vastly more uncomfortable (I am Dutch; tall and not a spring chicken).

I'm not bothered by the price. As a freelancer, I run a business. And businesses should be held accountable for their actions and their impact on the climate. It would be hypocritical for me to complain about Shell using their corporate structure to ruin the earth while my own business is buying plane tickets for European destinations.

So I have no problem with having a little less profit at the end of the year if it means that my business operates with zero-emissions.

If you are truly trying to reduce emissions, it is probably far more effective to buy the $150 plane ticket, and then buy $300 in carbon credits, or solar power or something like that.

You seem to be spot on. According to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) the carbon footprint of a flight from Malaga -> Amsterdam for 1 person is about 0.161t (metric ton) [1]. One carbon credit gives you the right to release 1t carbon dioxide and according to the NYT (2019) one 1 carbon credit is worth no more than $30 [2]. So, in taking the plane you release 0.16t, but you can prevent the release of up to $300/$30 = 10t with the money you save.

So sure, the train releases less CO2, but if you instead fly and buy carbon credits you prevent 62 times your carbon footprint from the plane ever being released into the atmosphere. But I'm starting to wonder, does my math really check out here? These numbers seem kinda absurd.

1: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...

2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/prici...

EDIT: I made some edits to a better source, my inital source reported a flight would release 0.4t when in reality it's closer to 0.2

Great, so now we have more trees in a country that I will likely not visit. Meanwhile the people in my own country are suffering from the local pollution caused by planes and corresponding infrastructure. The noise a plane makes. The gigantic space that the airport needs. The local wildlife that suffers.

I was under the impression that carbon dioxide was largely a global problem. I don't have the knowledge to comment on that, or the other problems you brought up - in fact, I don't have much of an established opinion on the topic at all. I just wanted to present some math on how you could theoretically contribute to there being 62 times less CO2 in the atmosphere overall - if that's in your interests. I can't comment on the other intricacies (I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.)

Trains aren't that great either, unfortunately. Airports are a stain on a place, but railways cut huge stretches of habitats in two. Wildlife passes can help, but it's expensive to build a lot of them, and they're not a panacea. Plus, in some places you have to destroy valuable natural areas if you need to build more rail.

Still, until we have planes that pollute dramatically less (both in gases and in noise), they're the best we have.

You would probably have less trees in that country actually, give that trees need carbon dioxide to grow.

I wish I could upvote this more. And thanks for sharing this. It’s good to know I’m not alone and not the only “lunatic”.

So you're one of those Dutch people living in Andalusia, flying out to work in the Netherlands or other places during the week?

I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes. And it is, imo, not a very sustainable lifestyle.

Aviation should be taxed like other transportation (fuel, vat), I do not understand why it is taking forever for politics to come around to doing this. Airplane tickets need to cost at least twice what they are now, the tax income used for sustainable energy investments, that would work much better than that CO2 add-on that they try to shame you into buying at KLM.

I fly to NL twice a year :) I fly mostly to Asia for clients. But I would do that twice a year by train if it were cheaper as that's (usually) not for business.

And yes, I agree they should add it on. I am not bothered with paying a bit more and making it more sustainable, so I try to convince clients to do more via video conferencing, but it is just not as good. I suffer from terrible tinnitus and I found that a lot of (men) suffer from that as well but don't talk about it (shame?) so in conference calls often just no-one can understand anything and politeness/shame prevents anyone (but me) from saying anything about it. Face to face that issue is just not there.

Edit: also I would Find it a better idea if the gov subsidizes the NS like they used to; you want cars of the streets and people travel less by air; make trains really really cheap. Inside NL it's often cheaper (and definitely more convenient) to take the car as well. To me that makes no sense really. I take the train usually in NL because I don't have a car there, but everyone I know just takes their car everywhere unless they live in the center of Amsterdam and travel inside Amsterdam.

Edit:

> I can understand why someone would do that, but it is affordable only because aviation is mostly untaxed and very inexpensive compared to any other transportation modes.

I understand this point that yes, that is not fair. And I understand it is not a viable model if I would just fly where I work (which I don't; I work 90% from home) and I know others do though. But the non sustainable model comes from the fact there are too many emissions which are not covered; as a consumer, why would I care, in any other way but that, about how these prices are formed? I see they are (a lot cheaper), so if I cover the emissions, they are still cheaper. So it's far better than taking the train if you look at it like that. And it does not seem to change soon either so seems quite sustainable too.

> you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

Tou do have to travel to the train station first, though. Which, depending on where you live relative to the city may take longer than getting to the airport.

Traveling by Eurostar train between countries also require airport-like security check.

> Ever better: Night trains. Take the 21:00 train. Fall asleep. Wake up at 09:00 having passed two countries.

Get mugged while asleep. Also, train with a small child?

Also,

> The loss of time is minimal for small distances (< 500km) as you don't have check-in and don't have to travel to the airport first.

Depends. In like 2009 or so I had a train in Serbia. It went with 60 km/hour. It took me a whole day (24 hrs) to get to my destination. With plane and bus, it only took me half a day.

> Get mugged while asleep.

The overnight trains here (Scotland) have lockable cabins and lockers for those that choose to use the reclining seats. Not that crime is a problem anyway.

> Also, train with a small child

Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

60kmh is pitifully slow. It certainly explains why plane is actually faster where you are. In the Blue Banana [1] high speed rail is a reality. The airlines have stakes in it, and discontinued regional flights for that reason.

The trains are cruising at 300kmh within 5 minutes of leaving the station.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana

> Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

I experienced that first hand and I rather have a flight. For me it was 2 hours flight plus another 2 hours getting in and out of airport. That's nothing with 23h of train ride on the same route with couple train changes. From my experience any travel over 4 hours long is almost impossible with a small child especially if most part of that time require sitting in one place.

> The overnight trains here (Scotland) have lockable cabins and lockers for those that choose to use the reclining seats. Not that crime is a problem anyway.

I've had these long distance trains a couple of times and ICE of Deutsche Bahn (I went through Germany with ICE) did not have such coupes or lockers.

> It certainly explains why plane is actually faster where you are.

It was an example of a vacation in Serbia. Train is great here in The Netherlands. People moan they're not on time, but if you look at the density of the infrastructure its a prestige.

> Travelling by plane with a small child seems equally irritating.

True, but the thing is, that travel by train (as I described) is very long. Either way all you gotta do is keep them (relatively) silent. Either via asleep or by keeping them occupied.

Regardless now that I have a child, I have a lot more sympathy for other parents with their child. And dogs remain the most disgusting, for me.

It doesn't account for the full difference in price, but air travel is still widely unfairly subsidised compared to trains.

For example, jet fuel is not taxed for international flights, whereas diesel for international trains (almost the same actual fuel) is taxed.

Airports also enjoy very favourable planning and tax treatment.

You also don't pay VAT on flight tickets

Aren't trains mostly electric?

A lot of cross border trains are not, due to a lack of a common standard voltage, transmission, etc.

> would be not amused if I add on CO2 there

You are a freelancer - negotiate!

Excellent point.

This is very much true. Especially for private travel like city trips etc, I wouldn't mind at all if the trip took a little longer, for me the trip itself is part of the experience. But the prices for long-distance train trips are just insane. I can fly from the airport 10 minutes from my home to basically any city in europe for less than 100 euro, London or Paris often for less than 50. But a two-way train ticket to London for example could easily run over 400 euro's.

The problem is not so much with the price of train travel, even though I would not mind subsidizing it more so it could be cheaper. The problem is simply that plane tickets are way, way too cheap. I get that people like to fly and free market capitalism pretty much dictates making it cheaper is a good thing, but right now air fares are not including the hidden, socialized cost of air travel (pollution, noise, need for infrastructure, spoiling of touristic destinations, etc) of everyone being able to take flights on a whimsy just because it's so cheap. I would be fully in favor of taxing air travel heavily to compensate for these things, even more so if the proceeds could be used to make train travel cheaper.

Yup, the difference is mostly in personnel cost - in a train you need to pay a staff for the whole x hours, while a plane does the same distance in a fraction of the time.

It’s even simpler: Trains are powered by taxed energy sources. Planes are powered by untaxed kerosine.

I'm not convinced. According to [1], fuel costs make up 25% of airline expenditures. Elsewhere in the thread [2] someone says that plane tickets cost less than 100 euro compared to over 400 Euro for comparable train tickets. This difference simply can not be accounted for using taxes. Even a 500% tax on aviation fuel wouldn't put plane tickets close to train tickets.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/591285/aviation-industry...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361346

I think infrastructure plays a great role.

An airport is expensive, but once you have it, you basically don't need infrastructure to link it to other airports. (I guess there's a few beacons, lights and ATC centres, but compared to the price of thousands of kilometres of rail, this is nothing.)

Compare to rail where you have to build and maintain all those kilometres that must cost a ton long term.

From an article I read recently about trains in France, a high-speed rail line is in the €15B range on average. An airport is in the low billions (even Berlin new airport which is massively over budget is still only around 6B I think).

Maintenance of a rail line is €300k/y/km from the same article, when maintenance for the (empty) Berlin airport was in the 20M range.