A rant from someone who lives in the south, travels north constantly, and still believes in trains, Scotland, and the righteous importance of the Lorne sausage.
There’s always that moment, 48 hours before you travel, when you open the laptop and start the ritual:
Skyscanner on one tab.
Trainline, TrainSplit, and Seatfrog on the other (if you know, you know).
You punch in the same dates, the same route, the same hope that maybe this time the numbers won’t be insane.
But there it is, shining like a cosmic joke:
A train to Scotland: £90… £120… £140 if you’ve annoyed the algorithm.
A flight: £19.99. Maybe £14.99. Occasionally something so low you wonder if you’ve accidentally booked cargo.
And every time, the same disbelief:
How is the environmentally responsible choice the expensive one?
How, in 2025?
How, in a climate crisis?
How, in a country that claims to care about emissions?
I live in the south. But my life runs north.
This stuff is not theoretical for me.
I’m constantly travelling north — ageing parents, family duties, the pull of home that only gets stronger as the years roll on. The need to go back, to check in, to make sure everything is alright. To stand in the place you’re from and feel anchored again.
And, let’s be honest, to eat a proper square sausage.
The southern ‘banger’ is fine if you enjoy limp sausage disappointment for breakfast.
This is where the absurdity gets personal.
To go home, to look after the people who matter, to reconnect with my roots, I’m being nudged towards the travel option that is objectively worse for the planet.
And that’s the bit I can’t swallow.
It should not be cheaper to burn aviation fuel than to buy a Lorne sausage.
But here we are.
The Great British Price Paradox
On the day the Guardian did its comparison, the London–Edinburgh train cost about £77.10.
The flight? £15.
Fifteen pounds.
You can’t get lunch in Edinburgh for that.
And the reasons — while maddening — are well documented:
• Rail fuel is taxed; aviation fuel isn’t.
• Rail carries massive fixed costs; aviation doesn’t.
• Rail pricing is rigid and outdated; airline pricing is basically AI-powered gamesmanship.
• Rail infrastructure is expensive and charged back to operators; airlines get to bypass a lot of that.
• Airlines can flog seats below cost because they make the money back on luggage, boarding, and the privilege of having your knees near your body.
The Guardian noted that 85 percent of rail operator costs are fixed — staff, trains, track access.
Airlines, meanwhile, can drop fares to absurd levels simply to fill a seat.
No wonder the whole system is upside-down.
The climate contradiction
We’re told daily to recycle more, switch to EVs, take shorter showers, eat less meat, turn off the lights, and feel personally responsible for the future of the planet.
All of which is sensible.
But then the government turns around and allows a situation where:
Flying is cheaper than taking the train.
On domestic routes.
In Britain.
In 2025.
This isn’t climate leadership.
It’s climate pantomime.
You can’t lecture people about carbon footprints while pricing low-carbon travel like a luxury purchase. Behaviour follows incentives. And right now, the incentives make no environmental sense whatsoever.
We could fix this. Easily.
Other countries have done it:
• Tax aviation fuel properly.
• Simplify rail pricing.
• Subsidise rail in a way passengers actually feel.
• Invest in rail as critical national infrastructure, not an afterthought.
• Make short-haul flights the expensive, inconvenient option — because they should be.
But here in Britain?
We’ve binned HS2 having turned it into a philosophical discussion.
We’ve allowed rail fares to become a cryptic puzzle with codes and exceptions and arcane rules.
We’ve subsidised rail heavily but in ways that don’t reduce the ticket price.
And we’ve essentially given aviation a free pass to undercut trains endlessly.
It’s embarrassing.
And completely solvable.
Make the easy choice the right choice
The answer has been staring us in the face for years:
If we want people to take the train, make the train the cheap option.
If we want to meet climate goals, align the incentives.
If we want a future worth living in, stop punishing the sustainable choice.
Trains are low-carbon, efficient, central, and part of the solution.
Flights are high-carbon, resource-heavy, and should not be the budget option.
But the price signals currently tell people the exact opposite.
This isn’t how serious countries behave.
The Third Half stance
The Third Half is about the pivot — the moment when common sense finally overtakes inertia.
And this is one of those moments.
It should not cost more to travel north to see your parents than it does to fly to Barcelona.
It should not feel financially foolish to choose the train.
It should not require spreadsheets, apps, and seat auctions to make a climate-friendly choice.
And it absolutely should not be cheaper to fly from London to Edinburgh than it is to pick up breakfast in Edinburgh.
Choosing the sustainable option shouldn’t require heroism.
It should simply be normal.
Time to fix it.