That door-to-door convenience is what stood out most. There was no hour of queuing before boarding, or very typical delays. I could bring a bag without worrying about liquid restrictions or weight limits, and actually use the journey productively — reviewing my presentation notes with a coffee rather than being crammed into a middle seat. The train was on time both ways, which made planning the rest of my schedule far easier than the buffer I'd normally build in for flight delays.
The comparison with flying was especially clear because I'd flown to Bordeaux the week before. That trip took a lot more time overall once you factor in getting to the airport, security, gate waiting, and then transferring from the destination airport into the city — and it was noticeably more expensive once you added up the transfers on both ends. The Eurostar, by contrast, dropped me almost directly into the heart of Lille, and the whole experience felt more predictable and less draining. Comfort-wise there was no contest: proper legroom, room to walk around, and none of the cramped feeling of a short-haul flight.
Beyond the practical side, this trip shifted how I think about travel choices for work. Flying has always felt like the default option for short trips abroad, but experiencing how easy and comfortable rail travel can be on a route like London to Lille made me reconsider that default. Much of the perceived hassle of long-distance travel is really specific to flying, and it disappears when you take the train instead.
This is exactly why initiatives like IGUANA matter. By actively encouraging researchers and clinicians to choose lower-carbon travel options, initiatives like this help shift the norm away from "flying by default," and make it easier to justify choosing rail even when time or convenience might otherwise tip the decision toward a flight. Travel is often one of the biggest contributors to a conference's overall carbon footprint, so programmes that nudge attendees toward rail on well-connected routes can make a real, cumulative difference — without anyone sacrificing comfort or reliability.
Overall, this trip left me genuinely impressed by how much better the experience was compared to flying. It wasn't just the more environmentally conscious choice — it was more comfortable, more convenient, and more reliable too. I'd encourage other researchers and clinicians to look at rail options wherever a route makes it feasible, particularly for well-connected European cities. It's rarely as inconvenient as it first appears, and often it's simply the better option.
Looking ahead, I have future conferences coming up, and this trip has changed my starting assumption: I'll check train options first rather than defaulting to flights, especially for destinations within a similar range to Lille, prioritising rail wherever it's feasible.