Thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient, but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient th

Thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient, but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient than the airplane. What institution changes are needed to realize the potential of rail's inherent energy-efficiency are not clear. Three things: 1. Render the skill set necessary for piloting any aircraft down to a level of ease as trivial as operating any train. This is not to say that operating a train is trivial. Nor that such a feat of equivocation is even possible. 2. Reduce the failure mode of every aircraft to failure modes on par with those of stalled trains, such that a stalled aircraft merely risks mid-air collisions with other aircraft still in motion, with outcomes similar to those of a moving train colliding with a stalled train, stuck on the same track. This includes accounting for the level of inconvenience and options available for re-routing and remediation of stalled passenger flights, stranded in mid-air, as if they were trains stalled on a track. 3. Provide insurance coverage that promises that should the two preceding requirements not be met, when an air disaster does eventually occur, financial costs are reduced to costs comparable to scenarios under which a train might have suffered a similar scale of disaster. Consider the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster [1], for industrial incidents, consider passenger train derailments occurring on bridges [2] for incidents involving passenger fatalities. Obviously financial compensation cannot redress the loss of human lives, but only serve to bankrupt negligent operations that fail to properly protect the lives of the passengers and bystanders that entrust their territories and well-being to said services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangiwai_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangiwai_disaster Based on this, I would assume that a natural equilibrium in human motivation to take on roles either in rail transportation or air transportation would attract a similar or even interchangeable class of personnel, and thus provide similar capacities of efficiency to both sectors of the transportation industry, based on the relative equivalence in the quality of the staff occupying similar positions in each type of service. Working on railroads is not as sexy as working in airplanes, both in terms of the perception of danger, as well as perception of implicit social status. Level the playing field between the task of operating railways with that of flying airplanes, and maybe people will be just as motivated to deliver super-efficient rail travel, as they are to deliver world-class airline service.