>>2056992
Train for comfort, bus for prices.

Where I live busses have more of a variable pricing. So lets say a ticket costs between 10-35. And if I book two or three days in advance I can still find something for say 14 if I choose an inconvenient time.

Now on trains same line would cost 15-75 but the price just increases linearly with time. So if I book 3 months in advance it costs 15. But if I want to go there in the next few days I always pay full price.

And that fucking sucks, sorry, but I won't plan every shitty trip months in advance

But on a train you have way more space so they are way more comfy imo

Though both sucks long distance. I mean all travel sucks long distance. But still like 12hr trips by bus I'd rather do by car

>>2056992
Bus: short-medium journey (30 mins to hour)
Train all other journeys (hour+)

>>2056992
Buses are orders of magnitude more efficent. Trains build part of their wheel into the ground and in cases of appalling wasteful electrification, the engine too. Then receives a huge taxpayer subsidy and still charges you 10x-50x a bus ticket. When it hits a quarter inch track fault it derails, killing 200 people. Never has to pay fuel or road tax.

Buses in the mean time are totally unsibsidised, pay for taxed fuel and road tax and bounce over 8" potholes without breaking stride. Only need a resistive surface, can go anywhere. Can charge route easily. And are profitable, a net benefit to society unlike trains.

Passenger trains have been obsolete since the perfection of the pneumatic tire and small diesel engine in the 1920s, over a century ago. Trains only use today is what they were invented for, haulling heavy aggregates from mine to port. And that is what they should be used for.

Trainlets should be offered courses on riding a two-stroke moped if they aren't happy about their historical preservation-as-reality being closed down and sold for scrap.