Thanks for the resources! I agree that in such analyses the assumptions are carrying more of the weight of the argument than they often should, and that reading with a skeptical eye is important.

“This report by Chester was discussed on the Pro-Urb email group a
couple of weeks ago. Apparently the results for trains were skewed
because they included driving to the station – assuming an American
context in other words. The comparator figures were also taken from a
very old railway line in Boston, Massachusetts. The other thing
included in the report that was at least disingenuous was comparing
planes in journeys of less than 100km. That is not a practical or
realistic scenario, yet it was compared as like-for-like.

I would argue for stations located in places that are served by buses
and trams or in areas of higher density within walkable distance so
that passengers don’t need to use cars to get to the station.

This report is of relevance:

Energy Use and Pollution of Travel Modes
http://pedshed.net/?p=219

Also this comment by one of the members of Pro-Urb:

..Chester’s focus on life cycle energy and emissions per passenger
mile of travel can lead one to optimize the wrong thing. Energy and
emissions per trip are also very important, not just per mile of
travel. The Green Line (and perhaps Muni) is used for many more
trips and much shorter trips than commuter rail in the Boston
region. The energy and emissions per trip are thus much smaller.
There is greater population density, greater trip destination density
and more frequent stops. … Obviously, all electrified rail also
offers the opportunity to reduce total urban population exposures to
pollutants of immediate health concern, though GHGs are a different
matter. … Urban core transit in Boston carries over 1,000,000
riders per weekday. They simply could not fit on our roadways in
private vehicles.

And this from a blog on the article:

[T]he metrics for the jet travel across town is ridiculously
incorrect. Even if the study authors included 1 take-off and 1
landing in their comparison, a light rail trip across town would
involve dozens of stops and starts. Maybe if the authors had
considered this fact, added in multiple take-offs and landings and
also considered the fact that using a jet for local commuting would
require the construction of dozens of runways, as well as the amount
of circling that would be required for large planes to travel these
short distances, they would have managed to come to the perfectly
obvious conclusion that using passenger jets in place of light-rail
is hideously inefficient. I mean really, sometimes there’s a reason
for something to seem counterintuitive. Like being wrong.

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2098#comment-97817
”

His final comment to me was :- “Sometimes it pays to read these sorts of articles with a cynical eye!”

Off the top of my head (with no actual, you know, knowledge or calculation involved) answer would be yes. The failure of rail for passengers is, I think, about load factors. Planes are usually pretty full, trains less so.

But freight trains are usually 100% full…..