I’m writing this on Eurostar as it races over the flat and featureless plains of northern France (scenery made for speed, if ever there was), en route to Brussels. It’s costing me around £70 more to go overland than it would by air. So am I a typically smug eco-angel, selflessly forking out the extra dosh to keep my green halo intact?

Am I hell.

I’m travelling like this for two reasons: i) it’s simpler, calmer and a lot more comfortable; and ii) I get more work done.

At first glance, that last statement looks odd. Surely the plane would get there faster, so I’d have more time to work?

Not as such. Factor in the hours it takes to get to the airport, add in the endless crawl through security, the wait for the luggage at the other end, followed by the long journey into town. Then consider the fact that the flight is so short there’s hardly time to open the laptop before you’re briskly reminded that “all electronic devices must be switched off during take off and landing”. (Which is probably just as well, considering the near certainty that at some point your neighbour’s elbow will propel his cheap red wine and complimentary nuts all over your meticulously-compiled but unsaved spreadsheet…).

Add it all up, and you have several hours of tedium laced with occasional stress.

By comparison, trains are a mobile oasis of peace and productivity, especially if you opt for the quiet carriage, leave your dongle in your bag – and resist the urge to text hourly proof of your continued existence to colleagues and friends.