More ETT

OO said:

Conventional rail *today* is far cheaper than the air net mainly because the
railways were built half a century or more ago. For the most part, the
investment has already been paid off.

However, if you compare the cost efficiency of a *new* long-distance
railway line to that of using aircraft (and building a new landing strip at
either end of the route) it'll take quite a long time before the railway beats
the aircraft, simply because the initial investment is so much larger for the
railway than for the two airports.

[Tomb] An average train can easily move tens of metric tons of
cargo.(100,000kg wasn't an unusual number IIRC) How many planes does this
take? And do you honestly want to tell me that maintaining a
properly run airport (with appropriate ATC - properly manned, with
SAR/fire emergency) is cheaper (over a twenty or fifty year period of
life cycle costing) than a train link which has a far lower emergency recovery
overhead and doesn't need the same type of traffic control?
And trains have a much lower per-hour maintenance-cost per kg*km of
cargo I believe. The maintenance cycles on planes are far more regular and
intensive than those on most trains and train parts. (Now, the more you run
trains over obstacles like rivers or through towns, the more maintenance you
have on the track and crossings and bridges).