Travelling within India often leaves me confused about whether I should take a train or a domestic flight. It feels like flight travel is always more convenient and fast, but that's not always true for every route. There are some places where travelling by train is actually better than taking a flight.
My sister stays in Ahmedabad, which is around 550 kms from Mumbai. It is a 1-hour flight between these two cities, whereas the fastest train journey is around 6 hours. At first glance, the choice seems obvious — 1 hour vs 6 hours. But when I actually calculated my door-to-door travel time, the story is completely different. The railway station is much nearer to my home than the airport. It takes me around half an hour to reach the railway station, but it takes me around 1.5 hours to reach the airport. If I have to take a flight, I need to reach the airport at least 2 hours prior to my flight time for check-in and security. After landing in Ahmedabad, I have to wait for my bags to arrive and then travel for another hour to reach my sister's place. The railway station at the destination same as the airport, so here not much of difference.
In all, my total travel time by flight comes to almost 6 hours, compared to train travel which is 7.5 hours. Yes, just 1.5 hours more than the flight. It may feel like I am saving time by flying, but I am not saving energy. For a flight, I have multiple transfers as well as long waiting times. Whereas by train, once I sit in the train, I get off straight at my destination. There is no check-in formality, no long wait time, no anxiety about delays and gate changes, and no headache of waiting to pick up bags on arrival.
The most important drawback for me when it comes to flight travel is the baggage weight restriction. I always carry a lot — gifts for my sister, some homemade food from home. In a flight, I have to constantly think — is it 20 kgs? Will they charge extra? In a train, I don't have that stress. Comparatively, it's a much smoother and relaxed travel for me by train than by flight. Let's look at the cost. Even the cheapest flight ticket costs me at least 2.5 times more than an AC train fare. My thought is simple — is it worth spending so much more just to save 1.5 hours? I would not prefer doing that. That money saved can easily cover our food and outings for two days.
This is just one example I have given. My rule now is to always compare four things before booking — total travel time, not just the in-transit time, cost, convenience, and baggage allowance. Sometimes the train journey can be even longer than this, 10 or 12 hours overnight, but I still prefer it. I can board in the night, sleep peacefully in my berth, and wake up fresh at my destination. No taxi at 4 AM to the airport, no sleepy security queues.
I am not saying rail is better than flight — both have their own importance. If I have an urgent meeting or an emergency, a flight is a lifesaver. Not everyone has the leisure of time to make these choices, so flight connectivity is extremely important. Also in my growing up, I always travelled by trains, I did not have the liberty to enjoy the luxury of a flight, so naturally my preferences draw towards train travel first.
But for routes under 600-700 kms, where the railway stations are in the heart of the city and airports are far outside, we should really calculate the real time, not the flight time. Often, what looks fast on the ticket is not actually fast in real life.
What do you prefer for short routes like this — train or flight?
Thank you for visiting my blog. 👼🏻👼🏻💖💖🌹🌺🌸