Skip to content

David Nilsson: Long train running (reflections on quality)  

It is a grey and very early November morning. My neighbourhood is empty at this time of the day and I am briskly walking towards the subway station accompanied only by the chilling wind. Realising that I am going to be travelling for 36 hours, I ask myself solemnly; why am I doing this? Why on Earth am I travelling by train from Stockholm to Darmstadt in Germany, a destination that neighbours Frankfurt hosting the arguably largest airport in Europe?  I think the main reason is just to show to myself that it can be done. But also to explore if there are certain other qualities to this kind of travelling, qualities that we generally overlook as we jet around the world looking for answers to global sustainability challenges.

Photo: David Nilsson
Photo: David Nilsson

Once we had begun talking at KTH about sustainability and travelling habits in our own scientific community, I felt it was impossible to entirely ignore the issue. Having just flown back from a conference in Kenya on the theme of sustainable transport [sic] I promised myself to try a more environmentally friendly alternative for my upcoming trip to Darmstadt. Even if it was just for a one-day guest appearance in a lecture and a seminar, at least this time going by train was possible, if not practical. In the following, let me share some reflections from the trip in the context of “The Travelling Scientist”.

First, just making the reservation was a bit difficult. Our travel agency of course helped out, but compared to the plethora of alternatives for flying, the railways did not offer many options. Faced with relatively poor interconnections between the three countries’ state-owned operators, to be on site on Monday morning I had to start already on Saturday. And spend the night somewhere on the way. However, going back was easier, with a series of connections over 18 hours.

Secondly, the environmentally friendly alternative turned out to be more expensive, as usual. The train tickets alone cost me about €400, compared to around €300 for taking the plane. Add to this the extra costs of hotel nights, and food and drinks for two and a half days of travel in total.

Photo: David NilssonPhoto: David Nilsson

So; on the downside I can just conclude that the train took me there and back in an awful long time and at a considerably high cost. Not exactly the wet dream for an advertising campaign. But were there any “hidden qualities” to it? Yes, actually.

Since I anyway had to stay the night in Copenhagen, I spent an afternoon mulling through some archives at Landsarkivet (District Archives) in Lund. I had intended to go here for quite some time but never really felt it worthwhile to go just for the sake of this alone.

Moreover, I seldom find a lot of time to work undisturbed and in a concentrated manner during my regular working week. But two days comfortably seated in a train in the sole company of a laptop can actually be quite productive. Especially since all trains nowadays seem to be equipped with A/C outlets, and some also with free WiFi.

Photo: David NilssonPhoto: David Nilsson

Even when I wasn’t working on my laptop, or reading some of the literature I was carrying, I had the opportunity to reflect and think or just let my mind wander. And how rare isn’t that for the contemporary professional and scientist?

Of course I also enjoyed the shifting impressions of people, landscape and culture as I rolled through Sweden, Denmark and Germany. For once, when travelling, I could even experience the changes of the local cuisine and not just the stereotypic airplane food that leaves absolutely no impression other than that ordinary faded reminiscence of taste, with added plastic feeling. As a bonus, I got to buy a dirt cheap crate of Danish beer when the train, to my great surprise, boarded the ferry to Rödby on the way back!

Photo: David Nilsson
Photo: David Nilsson

I’m not sure that when adding this all up, the train stands out as such an impossible alternative after all. Just the fact that I forced myself to think and act in a different way opened up new opportunities, and added other qualities, to the “simple” act of transporting myself to Germany and back for a day’s work. If our job as scientists is mainly aimed at maximizing the throughput in terms of quantity, in number of conferences attended or guest lectures held, then flying is of course the way to go. But if quality in the long run is at the core, I’d like to wait passing a final judgment.

One thought on “David Nilsson: Long train running (reflections on quality)  ”

  1. I can only agree with David about the advantages and overall quality of long-distance train trips compared to flying. In September I attended a conference in Leipzig and combined it with a stay in Berlin where I visited friends and my newborn godson. Starting from my homeplace in Austria, it felt much more like a journey than “just” a conference visit. And all the experiences on these stations and between them can not be compared with the empty hours waiting for a plane at an airport. Plus I can recommend as well to take the Hamburg-Copenhagen train over Rödby – it’s a strange but amazing feeling to get on a ferry by train!

    One point where I disagree are the prices of long-distance trains in Europe. If one plans a bit ahead (two months at least) one can easily find quite cheap tickets for all railway companies. When I booked the trains for the Christmas holidays I paid in total 200 Euros, for connections between Uppsala and Innsbruck, AND the way back. The only discount I got whas 25% on tickets by the German Railways as I hold a BahnCard. What seems to be relevant here is knowledge about certain time and price systems, something that one usually acquires over years of experience. Spreading this information among colleagues and friends becomes crucial then!

Comments are closed.