Rail infrastructure can be expensive (especially when done as inefficiently as in the US) but the actual economics of running trains are fantastic. They're the second-most efficient way of transporting goods and people - after marine shipping.

A freight train can move 1 ton of cargo 480 miles using a single gallon of diesel. [1]

Even city rail, Bart trains in SF average 249 miles per gallon equivalent.

Not to mention you only need what - one or two people - manning a train carrying the average equivalent of 700 truckloads. Once you commit to putting it up, it's super cheap and efficient, which is why we do it.

[1] https://www.aar.org/article/freight-rail-moving-miles-ahead-...

[2] https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/GreenSheet.pdf

Not so. The whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off. Building the infrastructure is expensive. Recurring costs are much lower than other modes of land transport, ceteris paribus.

This. Rail lines don’t need much maintenance once installed. Compared to a hwy which starts to fall apart immediately. Trains are a relatively simple and robust transportation method. I wonder what the insurance costs look like between the different methods of transportation

Land transport yes, but the operational cost of long distance trains is quite a bit higher per passenger-mile than planes

Is it though? Or is it the fact that airlines are able to externalize their environmental costs, and are generally both under-taxed and subsidized.

[edit] I'm not saying that rail isn't subsidized - it usually is, and often heavily, to be clear. It's the environmental impact that's the thrust of my claim.

> externalize their environmental costs

It's that + Every step of the aviation industry is subsidized by state actors. oil companies are also incentivised to support as airlines are a massive consumer of karosene that would otherwise be a cheap byproduct of oil refining

Rail is much more expensive to maintain than roads on a per-kilometer basis - where are you getting your numbers from?

High speed rail is much more expensive to maintain than ordinary rail. Motorways are also more expensive to maintain than normal roads, but I think the railway has more capacity than both.

The comparison for a freight railway vs. an equivalent road is obvious: private companies who need the entire capacity, like mines, build railways.

(I will leave it to someone else to find figures for high speed rail vs. an equivalent motorway.)

Do you have a source? I'd expect rail to be more expensive from a capital expenditure perspective (laying rail, ties, buying cars, etc) but much cheaper to operate (coefficient of friction is lower between train wheels and rails than with rubber tires and roads, optimal speeding and slowing causing less wear on tracks, less downtime as rail repairs are much simpler than road repairs, etc)

In the UK, Network Rail spends about £150k per track kilometer per year on maintenance and renewal. Track needs constant maintenance through ballast redistribution and compaction to maintain track geometry; the rail itself needs to be ground regularly to maintain its shape; points systems need to be maintained, as well as signaling systems, earthworks and embankments, even vegetation.

Maintenance costs for major roads in the UK (trunk motorways and A roads) is something about half that.

All Network Rail railways: £4479M / 20,000 miles of track = £140000/km

Strategic Road Network: £700M / 4,436 miles = £98000/km

Not included: cost of pollution, injuries and deaths on the roads.

Not considered: potential and actual capacity of the roads vs the railways, potential for historic underinvestment meaning higher current costs, whether these statistics mean a single track/road lane or all the tracks/lanes, usage costs for passengers and freight.

A breakdown of the railways costs would be useful for a better comparison, i.e. major lines only.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Ann...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

You need to divide maintenance by the actual usage of the infrastructure. Railway can handle much larger usage of the infrastructure per km than a motorway can. You may need 4 motorway lanes to support the usage of a single train track in order to handle the same capacity. Per capita, rail costs tend to be a lot lower as rail can handle much more than 2x motorway throughput.

You need to factor in the cost of moving goods for each.

I really don't, if my point is to rebut the statement "the whole point of trains is that expenses are largely one-off."

I love trains. I used them all the time when I lived in the U.K. and in Japan. I've ridden Amtrak from New York to San Francisco, and the Orient Express. They are, however, very much not a one-and-done investment as is being suggested elsewhere in this thread.

People are largely familiar with road maintenance, but most of them have no idea at all about maintenance of the railway.

Rail networks have a lot more potential for automation and electrification. It is way too underestimated.

It would be cool to see when Amazon gets into Rail.