Train vs Flight

Compare the carbon footprint of train travel versus flying and see how much CO2 you can save.

Compare the carbon footprint of traveling by train versus flying between any two stations. See exactly how much CO2 you save by choosing rail, with equivalencies that put the savings in perspective — like how many days a tree would need to absorb the saved emissions, or how many kilometers of car driving it equals.

How It Works

1

Enter Your Route

Search and select your departure and arrival stations from 10,000+ stations worldwide.

2

Compare Emissions

We calculate CO2 using verified emission factors: 41g/km for trains and 255g/km for flights (EEA/DEFRA data).

3

See Your Impact

View the percentage savings, a visual bar comparison, and real-world equivalencies (trees, car km) for your CO2 reduction.

No stations found.

No stations found.

CO2 Savings by Train

CO2 Emissions Comparison

Train
Flight
🌳

Equivalent to

days of a tree absorbing CO2

🚗

Or driving

in a petrol car

Frequently Asked Questions

Train emissions (41g CO2/passenger-km) are based on European Environment Agency (EEA) averages across European rail operators. Flight emissions (255g CO2/passenger-km) come from UK DEFRA guidelines for average short-to-medium-haul flights including radiative forcing effects.
Yes, significantly. Electric trains powered by renewable energy (e.g., NS in the Netherlands using 100% wind power) emit near-zero operational CO2. Diesel trains can emit 60-80g/km. Similarly, newer aircraft are more fuel-efficient than older models. Our figures represent European averages.
Aviation emissions at high altitude have a greater warming effect than ground-level emissions — this is called radiative forcing. The 255g/km factor includes a multiplier for this effect. Without radiative forcing, direct aviation CO2 is approximately 130-150g/km, but the total climate impact is roughly double.
In almost all cases, yes. Even diesel trains typically emit 60-80% less CO2 per passenger-km than flights. The only exceptions might be very long-distance routes where the train takes a significantly longer path, or routes served by diesel trains with very low occupancy rates.
A mature tree absorbs approximately 22 kg of CO2 per year (about 60g per day). This is an average — tropical trees in active growth can absorb more, while trees in cold climates or dormant seasons absorb less. We use this as an easy-to-understand equivalency.
No, these are direct operational emissions only. Full lifecycle analysis would include manufacturing vehicles, building infrastructure (tracks, airports), and energy production. Rail typically performs even better in lifecycle comparisons because tracks and trains last decades.
Short-haul flights (under 500 km) have higher per-km emissions because takeoff and landing consume disproportionate fuel. This makes the train advantage even greater for shorter routes. For routes over 1,000 km, the per-km flight emissions decrease slightly, but train still wins on CO2.

Methodology

CO2 emissions are calculated using average per-passenger-kilometer emission factors: trains at 41g CO2/passenger-km (using estimated rail distance at 1.3× straight-line) and flights at 255g CO2/passenger-km (using straight-line distance). These factors are European averages from the European Environment Agency (EEA) and UK DEFRA. Equivalencies use: trees absorb ~22 kg CO2/year (0.06 kg/day), and an average petrol car emits ~210g CO2/km.