Environmentalists and passenger groups have attacked the Government for driving rail passengers on to low-cost flights by presiding over a fourth consecutive year of inflation-busting train fares.

Sixty per cent of tickets sold have unregulated fares, which are set by private rail companies. These prices have gone up by as much as 8.4 per cent - more than three times the Government's target rate of inflation - so that a standard open return ticket between Manchester and London now costs £219, or £337 for first class.

The transport union TSSA said the increase meant UK rail fares were "by far and away the most expensive in Europe". Michael Meacher, a former environment minister, said the Government had "missed a golden opportunity to point up the benefits of public transport, and to make a very strong point about climate change". Instead of allowing train fares to go up, the Government should have capped or lowered them, he said.

Jason Torrance, campaigns director of the Transport 2000 pressure group, said the price rises flew in the face of "the Government's rhetoric about climate change".

Despite a poor image, with expectations of late trains and bad service, the railways have recently become popular. Approximately 83 per cent of trains ran on time in 2005 and customer satisfaction levels are at an all-time high of 80 per cent.

The train operating companies cannot keep up with demand and increased fares - rather than increased investment - are being used as a way of tackling the problem. That means flying is attracting more customers.

Those hit hardest by the fare increases are people who use trains at peak times. A standard open return ticket on the London to Glasgow service now costs £240. A standard open ticket from London to Plymouth is £214.

Business travellers have been hit harder than those who can choose to travel at off-peak times or can plan ahead. A Manchester to London ticket can be picked up for as little as £12.50 for those booking weeks in advance. But business travellers are those who are most likely to switch from rail to air, according to environmentalists. "Rail is an ideal solution for tackling the increase of low-cost airlines but these increases are instead pushing more people to use them," said Mr Torrance. "That's a disaster. The CO2 emissions from a London to Brussels trip by rail is 10 per cent of that by air."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said the Government's "limited green record" had been shot to pieces at a time when vast airport expansions were being permitted. "Motoring costs have been steadily declining as a share of income while the cost of public transport has steadily risen," said Mr Huhne. "These trends have to be reversed if we are to tackle climate change. Gordon Brown's claim to be environmentally friendly is clearly nonsense. Transport emissions are up 18 per cent since the Kyoto base year of 1990. Any climate change programme which does not tackle this sector is not worth the paper it's written on."

Chris Grayling, the shadow Transport Secretary, said: "This is further evidence that high fares are a deliberate part of government strategy to tackle overcrowding on trains. We can't expect people to leave their cars at home if they are being priced off the railways."

The TSSA union compared the £219 London to Manchester (200 miles) fare with the £34.50 it costs to travel from Paris to Calais. Travelling from Madrid to Barcelona (387 miles) or from Berlin to Bonn, (365 miles) costs just £63 in each case.

A Department for Transport spokesman said the Government was already spending record sums - on average £88m a week on the railways - meaning that 42 per cent of the costs of the railway are met by taxpayers. "We regulate some fare increases," he said. "Most commuter tickets and saver fares have their average increases capped at inflation plus 1 per cent. Setting fares which are not regulated is a commercial decision for train operators. It is in their interests to provide an attractive range of fares and to encourage more passengers to use the railway."

Why we took the plane from Manchester to London

"We never use trains any more. We don't feel safe on them; they're full of yobbos and drunks. Flying is much more convenient. It's more comfortable, and the cost doesn't really enter into it. I wouldn't care if the train was much cheaper; I would still want to fly."

Bernard Dewhurst, 67, from Lancashire, and his wife, Vivien

"I'm flying because I find trains really unreliable. I would use trains if they ran regularly, but now the prices are going up it makes them look even less attractive, and who wants to have to book ahead anyway? The whole point of getting a train is being able to jump on it. I do consider the damage to the environment flying makes, but this doesn't stop me. In this instance I'm doing the convenient thing."

Maxine Shapira, 39, a secretary from Rochdale

"I find trains completely unreliable and I'd rather get the plane. I can get from Manchester to London in 40 minutes. Planes are faster, more convenient and more comfortable. If the prices are going up for trains, I think more and more people will fly. I'm just not very environmentally sound, I'm sorry to say."

Alison Gilroy, 35, a teacher from Lancaster

"I would use trains if I was going to central London... but I'm getting a connecting flight today. If I knew I was going somewhere I'd book ahead and take advantage of the cheaper [rail] fares."

Helen Kaye, 37, hairdresser from Huddersfield

Manchester to London by rail

The numbers:
Every day, 34 trains - many of them packed - leave Manchester Piccadilly bound for London Euston

The price:
The cost of a ticket varies, but after yesterday's increase a standard open return is now priced at £219 (an 8.4 per cent rise)

The true cost:
Each passenger's journey produces 14.8 kg of CO2

London to Manchester by air

The numbers:
Every day, 48 flights take off from London bound for Manchester airport

The price:
Costs vary but return tickets for travel today were available last night for £171 (including tax)

The true cost:
Each passenger's journey produces 90kg of CO2

See also:

The Big Question: Why are rail fares rising so fast, and can these higher prices be justified?

Independent Online: 03 January 2007
By Ian Herbert

Why are we asking this question now?

Because another round of inflation-busting increases in rail fares has just been announced which, for those returning to work yesterday, will have provided some alarming experiences at the ticket desk.

For those who chose to travel from Glasgow to London, for instance, there was an eye-watering 8.1 per cent increase on last year's fare, which now stands at £240 for a standard and open return. London to Plymouth was an equally miserable experience: it now costs £214 for a standard open return - an increase of 12.6 per cent.

London Tube travellers were also hit, particularly those still paying cash for their journeys rather than using Oyster travelcards. The minimum single fare on the London Underground for a customer paying cash is now £4. The travellers' watchdog body Passenger Focus describes the rises as "very disappointing".

Who is affected?

The fares are a disaster for those who make regular peak-time long-distance business trips - from Manchester or Newcastle to London, for example - especially if they don't book well in advance. But the increases will be barely felt by those who do not travel at peak times and who can book weeks ahead.

The current overcrowding is largely confined to cities such as London, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, where more people than ever are using trains at peak-commuting periods and there are now simply too many passengers and not enough seats.

Across the entire railway system, overcrowding in 2005 was only just below the Government's limit of 3 per cent more passengers than rated capacity, and on the busiest commuter lines the limit is regularly flouted.

The rail industry argues that higher prices are one way of encouraging commuters to travel at less popular times of the day. The two worlds of travel are demonstrated by the London Euston- Manchester trip: a 9am standard single ticket today will cost £109. Book it a month in advance, travel at midday and you will pay £12.50.

What happens if the high fares don't deter rail travellers?

The environmental risks are profound because business travellers will turn in increasing numbers to low-cost airlines instead, to get them around Britain. Yesterday alone, there were 13 flights from Manchester Airport to London. Even a last-minute flight costs less than £100 (£97, in bmi's case) which is much cheaper than the rail equivalent. That flight will generate 0.09 tonnes of CO2 carbon. A train's emissions are one-tenth of the figure.

Environmentalists say the continual above inflation increases in rail fares fly in the face of government pledges on carbon emissions. They want the pricing regime for public transport to be at least the same as for air and road travel.

How have the railways fared under this government?

As opposition spokeswoman on transport, Clare Short pledged in 1996 to renationalise the railways. But for several years after Labour came to power in 1997, there was little action, and what progress had been made was delayed by the Hatfield disaster in 2000, which prompted a huge investment in safety. There have been improvements. In 2000, the passenger rolling stock was, on average, 21 years old. Investment by train-operating companies has now pushed that down to 15. The Public Performance Measure, which follows punctuality and reliability, has also been rising every year since 2001. With 83.6 per cent of trains running on time last year, Britain can compare itself to Germany and Switzerland. Greater reliability brings greater demand, however. UK rail use has grown at a higher rate than most EU countries, with a 2 per cent climb since 2003.

Will the Government spend more to increase capacity?

It seems unlikely. Since the end of the First World War, when the railways were in serious financial trouble, governments have tried to avoid increasing the amount of subsidy which goes into the railways: that was what inspired the rail privatisation of 1993. The problem is that rail improvements swallow up vast amounts of money. Network Rail, which owns the rail infrastructure, suggested last year that the Government might spend £8bn to upgrade stations and lay new track. That horrified ministers, for whom the network already costs considerably more than they want to pay.

Partly because of stricter safety requirements introduced after the Hatfield crash, which killed four people in 2000, railways account for 40 per cent of the total transport budget - but only 8 per cent of journeys made.

One option put forward by some analysts is to reduce the amount of money spent on the relatively little-used rural services. The investment per passenger mile for these lines is huge, with many of the trains maintained to the same standard as 90mph mainline services.

Cutting rural lines would prompt accusations that the Government is repeating the act of Dr Beecham, who axed nearly one quarter of the system 40 years ago. But the Government should at least raise the issue by demonstrating to the taxpayer what some of these lines are costing them, according to Professor Stephen Glaister of Imperial College.Last year's Eddington committee, which examined the future of public transport, made the same observation.

Are things better in continental Europe?

Generally speaking, yes. In France, Spain, Germany and Switzerland, there is a deeply ingrained culture of public investment in railways, which in most of those countries are considered a public service that should not be subject to the vagaries of private-sector operators. Ticket prices reflect this. There are none of the big differentials between peak and off-peak times.

The cost of travelling from Paris to Metz, in Lorraine, eastern France (at 206miles, roughly the equivalent of the London Euston to Manchester trip) is £32, whatever time of the day you travel. None of the standard prices would budge if you booked them two weeks in advance or 10 minutes before your train departed. British rail fares are three times higher than the rest of Europe, according to figures collected by the rail union TSSA. But the cost of major public investment in the railways is hurting some cash-strapped continental governments.

Is there any prospect that the situation will get better?

This year presents a big opportunity. In the summer, a railways White Paper is expected to be published, setting out the next 30 years of rail travel in Britain. Environmentalists and rail passenger groups see this as a key time to examine how capacity in the railways might be increased, with the incentive of tackling climate change in the process.

Are the higher prices fair to rail travellers?

Yes...

* Over the past decade, trains have become more reliable and safer. A better standard of service comes at a price

* Uproar over rail prices does not reflect the railways' usage: only 6 per cent of the population - most of them affluent - travel by train

* Businesses, who can afford it, are worst hit by price increases - not the poor or elderly, who tend not to travel at peak times

No...

* If we do not persuade more people to travel by train, there will be further increases in environmentally damaging car and air travel

* Train operators receive large government handouts and are profitable. They should not be allowed to use demand to inflate prices

* Gazprom would make the UK far too reliant on Russian gas at a time when government policy is to diversify energy supplies