Beyond the Train vs Plane Debate: Why Trains and Turboprops Belong Together

It’s 7:45 a.m. somewhere in Europe. The departure hall is already full. Some passengers carry briefcases, others insulated bags for medical samples. Among them are nurses heading to the nearest hospital, patients travelling for treatment, and residents making day‑return trips for work.

The question is: where is that scene unfolding? A train station? After all, isn’t Europe the land of high‑speed rail, where sleek trains knit the continent together at 300 km/h?

This departure lounge is actually located at the Stornoway Airport in Scotland, on the largest island of the Outer Hebrides, where passengers to Inverness are not choosing between equally practical modes of transportation. They are using the only one that can get them to essential services in time, safely, and reliably.

This morning routine reveals a reality often blurred by the “train versus plane” debate. Turboprop aviation is not a marginal alternative to rail. It plays an important role in Europe’s regional mobility system.

First, it complements high‑density transport networks. Turboprops do not compete on high‑speed rail corridors; they serve a different purpose by linking peripheral regions. In these lower-density areas, turboprops can then provide a significantly quicker alternative to conventional rail, enabling same-day travel that would otherwise take many hours. And where surface transport cannot reach local communities, turboprops are the only thing connecting them to healthcare, education, and public services.
Stornoway’s first flight of the day shows why Europe actually needs both rail and turboprops.

High-density corridors: rail leads, regional aviation complements

No one questions the strength of high‑speed rail. It offers an unparalleled carbon footprint and a seamless experience. In Europe, this benefit is even more pronounced because much of the continent’s electricity is generated with comparatively low‑carbon intensity, making electric rail travel particularly climate‑efficient. But these corridors are rare, geographically concentrated, and fundamentally urban.

High‑speed rail is a giant infrastructure system. It needs giant numbers. Around six million annual passengers on rail corridors, that’s the kind of volume needed to justify a new line. And those are exactly the city pairs served today by high‑frequency single‑aisle jets, not turboprops. Within the turboprop network itself, most routes simply do not have the volume to sustain rail alternatives.

So when public debates claim “if the train exists, the plane shouldn’t”, they almost always refer to jets on huge city pairs: Madrid–Barcelona, Paris–Lyon, Frankfurt–Cologne.

They do not refer to turboprops flying between London and Dundee, Madrid to Badajoz, Rome to Ancona.

High-Speed Rail and Turboprops: Complementarity, Not Competition

Importantly, high‑speed rail and turboprops can strengthen each other within a single, integrated transport system.

As stated by the European Union Agency for Railways in 2024: “The mobility of tomorrow must be provided by a fully integrated multimodal transport system… If airports are well connected to the rail network, new integrated rail–air products can be developed. The railway sector could thus be seen more as a partner to replace feeder flights to major hubs and better complement long‑haul journeys.”

In the future, airports might well be connected to the high-speed rail network for a seamless passenger experience. In the meantime, a long-haul passenger arriving in Madrid from New York City and wanting to get to Barcelona does not want to change terminals, cross the city, and board a train. Especially when travelling with reduced mobility, advanced age, or constrained physical autonomy. This passenger wants to continue their journey from the same airport, on a short regional flight that is time‑efficient and hassle-free.

Even where high‑speed rail exists, connectivity is not always direct. Many city pairs are linked only via large national hubs, adding waiting times, transfers, and detours that significantly reduce the practical appeal of rail. Let’s stay in Spain; travelling between Málaga and Valencia with a high‑speed train requires a substantial layover in Madrid. The absence of a direct connection turns what should be a straightforward journey into a time‑consuming one. Before a direct high‑speed rail link is in place, point‑to‑point regional aviation provides a more efficient alternative, offering direct, hub‑bypassing connections that better align with passenger needs.

Lower-Density Regions: Essential Mobility Is Multimodal

Europe’s transport networks are among the most advanced in the world, and high‑speed rail continues to expand across the continent. Yet no matter how ambitious rail planners may be, vast parts of Europe will always remain beyond the reach of high-speed tracks. In these areas, rail infrastructure may exist but it does not necessarily deliver functional accessibility.

Take the Lyon to Limoges route in France. The two cities are just 330 kilometres apart, yet travelling between them by train is surprisingly difficult. There is no direct corridor across the mountainous terrain of the Massif Central. The fastest rail option runs via Paris, takes more than six hours, and requires a change of stations in the capital. Unsurprisingly, a one‑hour flight can appear to be the simpler option.

From Stornoway, reaching Inverness by ferry and conventional rail is technically possible. In practice, it would take five hours, involve long crossings, multiple transfers and travel times incompatible with daily life.

In such geographically challenging environments, wouldn’t the solution be fixed infrastructure? The nearby Skye Bridge, often cited as a reference point, cost £27 million when it opened in 1995 and spans just 2.5 kilometres. Reaching Stornoway from the mainland would require a structure more than ten times longer, far exceeding the scale of any bridge currently in the UK – including the Bromford Viaduct, today the longest at 5.6 kilometres.

The same is true in many island regions, mountainous areas and peripheral mainland territories across Europe. And here, in Stornoway, the issue is not ideology or modal preference. Here, it is practical access to essential services.

That first Monday‑morning flight in Stornoway isn’t a luxury. It’s a lifeline.

According to a study from the European Regions Airline Association (ERA), The Economic, Social and Environmental Impact of Regional Airlines in Europe (page 40), air travel is often the only practical way for people in isolated communities to reach medical specialists, hospitals or diagnostic facilities.

In Scotland, the role of aviation in healthcare access is critical. In the Highlands and Islands, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) is the single largest business user of inter‑island air services. Studies show that around 20% of passengers on air routes within the region are patients or healthcare professionals, travelling for appointments, diagnostics or specialist treatment that simply cannot be delivered locally. In 2004, Scotland’s main regional airline, Loganair, has transported more than 55,000 NHS patients to and from communities in the Western and Northern Isles; journeys that would otherwise require long, weather‑dependent ferry crossings and hours on the road. For places like Stornoway, a cancelled flight is not an inconvenience; it can mean a delayed diagnosis, a missed clinic, or postponed care.

Conventional rail, ferries and roads all play a role in these regions. But they do not substitute for aviation; they complement it. Each mode contributes differently depending on geography, urgency, and weather reliability.

Removing turboprops does not shift passengers neatly to another mode; it often removes the journey altogether.

The Quiet Power of the Turboprop

When rail and turboprops work together, Europe gets a mobility system where everyone benefits. Turboprops do more than reach remote places. They emit around 45% less CO₂ than comparable regional jets, a difference that becomes decisive on the short sectors jets were never designed for.

And when turboprops replace jets, the impact is immediate and measurable. When the Vienna–Klagenfurt route transitioned from a regional jet to an ATR 72‑600 in 2024, it recorded a 30% improvement in CO₂ efficiency, the highest gain measured that year in Cirium’s global Flight Emissions Review.

Their contribution to long‑term decarbonisation is set to grow further with 50% SAF capability already certified and 100% SAF operation expected by the second half of this decade, pending final fuel‑standard validation.

Turboprops will also be the first regional aircraft platform to integrate hybrid‑electric technologies: under the EU Clean Aviation programme, ATR is developing the world’s first hybrid‑electric regional aircraft, planned to fly by the end of 2029 using an ATR 72‑600 testbed.

Which means that the plane taking Stornoway’s passengers to Inverness tomorrow could even have a lower emission profile than the one flying them today.

Designing Europe’s Regional Mobility System, Together

Europe’s transport future will not be built by asking whether trains should replace planes. That question assumes that all mobility needs are the same. They are not.

In high‑density corridors, high‑speed rail is the most efficient solution. In low‑density regions, regional aviation works alongside conventional rail, ferries and roads to provide regional mobility capabilities to otherwise remote regions. They sometimes even make healthcare, work and public services reachable in practice, and not just in theory. It is more division of labour than competition.

Back in Stornoway, the 8:15 flight is taking off. On board are teachers, doctors, patients, students and commuters. They are not choosing between a train and a plane. They are accessing the mainland – today.

For Europe, the real choice is not train or plane. It is whether mobility systems are designed to connect cities, or to help people move, as efficiently as possible, from one need or opportunity to another.