[Skynet]

When you move goods it is cheaper with Train then with planes. Why does not this count for passenger travel?

[Juin]

When you move goods it is cheaper with Train then with planes. Why does not this count for passenger travel?

I cannot recall the last time I was on a train. But I agree with you. It will seem to me like train travel should be cheaper than air travel.

[Patrickov]

It all comes down to cost and efficiency.

In general railway needs far more infrastructure than planes -- the latter essentially only need infrastructure at their start and end points.

For long distance travel, trains also take up more (planar) space than planes of similar capacity. (Planes are similar to ships in this case)

Freight, however, is the other way round -- planes have stricter weight limit than trains. Remember, planes need to overcome gravity while trains don't. That means moving freight by plane is less efficient than by rail. Also, it's probably impractical to move heavy bulk freight (in the order of hundreds if not thousands of tons) by plane. In comparison, passenger weight is relatively negligible so the cost on infrastructure and the vehicles themselves matter more, which is why planes can charge less to make a profit.

[Igor Antunov]

Regionally at least there is no reason that passenger Trains should not be cheaper than aircraft, especially if you can set up multiple stops to pick up and drop off passengers along the regional route. This however takes a huge deal of ground work, you have to build up the infrastructure and stations. Once that's done, the tertiary benefits long term are enormous because 100 trains can carry far more cargo and passengers than 100 aircraft. Entire cities can pop up along the route and make use of locally available resource bases and populations. Air travel cannot replicate this kind of mushrooming development. Railways are more like arteries. They can become an integral national, regional or continental lifeline for a country or integrated economy. In an extreme case, there can even be cross continental benefits, see the trans Siberian railway which facilitated the development of at least 26 new cities and opened up a vast resource base. Air routes are more akin to hops between economies and resource bases.

Long range between DISCONNECTED locations, Trains can't compete with passenger aircraft because the latter are simply faster and don't require infrastructure between destinations.

As for goods, via land; trains will always be more economical because they carry more tonnage per unit of energy consumed, and by sea ships are king. When it comes to goods Aircraft can only compete in specialty areas where express delivery is paramount and where time matters more than overall cost. Or in the case of passengers, where military endeavors are a focus and you need to get as many men and arms to a location as quickly as possible.

[AFAIK]

Trains are slower so one trip requires paying the crew for a 9 hour shift whereas a flight crew could complete 4 trips during their shift.

[Varilion]

When you move goods it is cheaper with Train then with planes. Why does not this count for passenger travel?

Lack of competition and "infrastructural limits".

Goods vs People isn't a meaningful comparison, they have different characteristics, such has weight, required space, required comfort, etc...

[Igor Antunov]

Trains are slower so one trip requires paying the crew for a 9 hour shift whereas a flight crew could complete 4 trips during their shift.

Pilot and co-pilot alone get paid more than Train engineer and all train cabin crew combined. Western airlines were using no frills discount pilots from developing countries until recently, but that jig is up. They have to pay them all equally now. No more Malaysian pilot on $20k a year.

[JohnRawls]

When you move goods it is cheaper with Train then with planes. Why does not this count for passenger travel?

Trains require a lot of infrastructure in the form of rail tracks and maintenance of those tracks. The problem with this is that it requires people and is also part of the price of your ticket. The difference between goods and people is the weight. Planes have a limited weight capacity which is not that relevant for people but very relevant for cargo.

I worked in the shipping business at one point of my life in both KN and CMA-CGM but basically the problem for planes/trains/cars and benefit of ships is that:

1) Shipping done by containers nowadays. From 20FT to 40FT and different variation with flat racks and open tops etc. The bottom line is that each container will carry around 20-26 tons while the more exotic types can carry more up-to 40 tons but they are rare. Technically it is possible to do more but there are already problems if you go above 30 tons so the most used standard containers are 20-26 tons.
2) Train can carry a lot of them fully loaded within those specifications for cargo but people require more room. If you take weight per person then one 40 FT lets say at 26 tons load is basically what? Lets even take out the 2 tons that the container weight by itself so 24 tons divided by average North American is 24000/80 which is 300 people. I would imagine that you can't really fit 300 people in a 40FT standard container if you tried.
3) So if you take that in to account then a train can carry i guess from 50 to 400 containers depending on what freight train it is. Now if you compare it to a plane with maximum freight loads up to 100 tons then that means that a plane carries maximum of under 5 fully loaded containers on a good day. Now compare it to ships which can carry up to 21000 TEU maximum ( 1 TEU = 1 20 FT standard container which is around 20 tons of weight per container on maximum load) and you start to understand the picture why transporting prices for goods is ship > train > plane/car.

This also explain why people is cheaper for planes and that is because people need more space and need less weight. Also people need food, water, commodities and so on for travel to be more appealing which adds to the cost. Time of travel becomes more important also.

[ccdan]

When you move goods it is cheaper with Train then with planes. Why does not this count for passenger travel?

I doubt flights are cheaper on average than train travel(at least normal trains, not high speed ones)

There's a very big difference between train and planes when it comes to ticket discounts and prices. Discounts can be huge for bookings in advance while prices for the last few days before the flight can be many times greater than the average price of a plane ticket - in essence, those who buy plane tickets lately, subsidize the prices for those who book in advance. While there are discounts for trains as well, they aren't that huge.

[Godstud]

Train travel is cheaper than flights in SE Asia, anyways.

I can fly to Bangkok for 1500 Baht($55 USD), or take a train for 800 baht($25). You can even travel for as cheap as 250($10 USD) baht, if you don't want the sleeper, but it's nice to take a night train and get some sleep. The flight is 1.5 hrs and the train is 11 hrs.

[fuser]

I am actually surprised that Air travel is cheaper anywhere in the world than train travel. TIL.

[Puffer Fish]

I think economics of scale may have something to do with it.
With passenger trains being much less popular than air travel, there is not the volume of customer base that is allowing prices to come down. Other people are more likely to travel by bus than by train.

Trains might not be such a bad idea for medium short distances of travel, with travel times comparable to delay times in airports.

Another factor that could be keeping prices up is the fact they are government-run, which could be resulting in a little bit lower economic efficiency, with less competition. Despite the fact that trains are indirectly heavily subsidized because the government owns the land that the tracks are on.

[AFAIK]

Trains have a higher carrying capacity than planes. 1200 max capacity vs. 350.

[Patrickov]

Trains have a higher carrying capacity than planes. 1200 max capacity vs. 350.

Not entirely relevant.

I think you need to take account in the volume occupied by a 1200-carrying train as well.

Also, if both vehicles take just, say, 100 passengers, who will lose more?

[late]

Politics.

Sorry, but that's the determining factor. The train lobby lost to the highway lobby in the 1950s, and has been trying to kill trains, intermittently, since.

China has spent a few fortunes on their bullet trains, but the prices are reasonable. They work for them.

What each country has to do is figure out what works for them. Trains have a lot of potential that isn't being used in the US. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to love their trains.

[wat0n]

Plenty of European trains are heavily subsidized by the respective governments though. Same could be said about airlines.

Highways are different, because although the initial investment is large (although it's not like the initial investment for trains isn't) the operating costs are generally low, even more so if they are maintained on a regular basis. And highways also seem to be more flexible for the user than train tracks.

[late]

Highways are different, because although the initial investment is large (although it's not like the initial investment for trains isn't) the operating costs are generally low, even more so if they are maintained on a regular basis. And highways also seem to be more flexible for the user than train tracks.

That is incorrect.

As the population spreads into the 'burbs, costs quickly rise to exceed tax income.

[Rancid]

Building more roads simply isn't sustainable (See Houston Texas with it's 23 lane highways). What is needed is mixed mode transport. Further, we need to stop building out cities for cars. We need to build them out for people.

[wat0n]

That is incorrect.

As the population spreads into the 'burbs, costs quickly rise to exceed tax income.

What makes you believe trains would be cheaper? It's not like you can't go to suburbs by train in places like Chicago either - but even in that case you may need to then go through a highway to go wherever you want to go.

[Patrickov]

Politics.

Sorry, but that's the determining factor. The train lobby lost to the highway lobby in the 1950s, and has been trying to kill trains, intermittently, since.

China has spent a few fortunes on their bullet trains, but the prices are reasonable. They work for them.

What each country has to do is figure out what works for them. Trains have a lot of potential that isn't being used in the US. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to love their trains.

1. The "politics" claim less appealing than I would like to accept, or more accurately, it only affects the United States, which is a bit off-topic given the forum on which this thread is opened. I will assume the price situation might also apply in Europe, where highway lobbying was far less successful in trumping railways. However, you inspired me that the OP should have proved that air tickets are also cheaper in Europe than train tickets.

2. It is true in even China that some air travel is still cheaper than the parallel train route, especially if HSR is involved. However, one might say the intense (?) density of China proper (i.e. minus Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia) makes coexistence of HSR, planes and highways equally sustainable as Europe, if not more.