Why would that be? A typical 110 ton capacity freight train car weighs 33 tons unloaded. It has no problems staying on the tracks.
Besides both buses and planes typically weigh much more than their freight (and planes need to lift all that weight 10km vertically), so I fail to see how that is an argument against trains.
I'm guessing at the numbers here but just to illustrate my point:
If an empty bus weights let's say 10 tonnes, and an empty train 33 tons. And the load of the passengers around 7 tonnes. So in total you'd transport 40 tonnes of train as opposed to 17 tonnes of bus.
Then obviously for that load rubber tires would be more efficient, and rail would be a bad fit.
There's a minimum load per cubic inch for trains to make sense, you have to have really dense cargo.
Like I said in another comment, subways in Paris run on rubber tires, it becomes especially inefficient with rail when there are frequent stops.
It would make so much more sense, especially in the US, to develop premium Tesla buses that could use the existing freeway infrastructure, than to expand rail.
From [1], the only comparable figures are the American train and the American bus. The bus is about half as efficient as the train.
There are similar figures further down the page ("German environmental costs") -- 0.25MJ/passenger-km for long distance rail, 0.85MJ/pkm for regional rail, 1.14MJ/pkm for bus service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
Exactly, and you need rolling resistance for traction. The heavier the load, the lower resistance you need, and vice versa, because the weight of the load increases resistance. Which is why you don't ship hay on trains, and don't ship iron on trucks.
No, you don’t. Look at e.g. gears: almost no friction, perfect traction.
> Which is why you don't ship hay on trains
No. You don’t ship it on trains because that is uneconomic. You keep your cattle close to your hay producing fields, where they can also graze.
Also, by your reasoning, an empty train would not be able to move?