Train, Plane or Bus: Choosing Between Them Honestly

The four hour rule

Under four hours of rail time, the train wins almost every time. Central station to central station with no security queue beats a 70 minute flight that requires two hours of airport and two transfers.

Between four and six hours it is genuinely close and depends on the specific airports. Over six hours, flying usually wins on time.

Do the door to door maths

For a flight, add 90 minutes before departure, 30 after landing, and both transfers. A 90 minute flight is realistically a five hour journey.

For a train, add 20 minutes before departure and the walk at either end. A three hour train is a three and a half hour journey.

• Rome to Florence: train, no contest
• Lisbon to Seville: bus or a short flight, since the rail link is poor
• Paris to Barcelona: 6.5 hours by train, close call with a flight
• Bangkok to Chiang Mai: overnight train for the experience, flight for the time

When the bus makes sense

Where rail is missing or slow, which in Europe means parts of Portugal and Spain's cross-border routes, and much of the Balkans. Also for short hops where the coach goes door to door and the train requires two changes.

For journeys under three hours, the price saving over a train is usually 5 to 15 EUR, which is rarely worth an extra hour.

Overnight travel

An overnight train with a berth can be excellent value: it replaces a hotel night and a travel day at once. An overnight bus rarely is, because almost nobody sleeps well in a coach seat and you lose the following day.

If you do take a night train, book a berth rather than a seat, and bring earplugs and a bottle of water.

Emissions, briefly

Rail is dramatically lower per passenger kilometre than flying on every route where it competes. If that matters to you, it is another reason to apply the four hour rule generously.

It also tends to be the more pleasant journey, which is the argument that usually wins in practice.