[Yacoby]

The goal is to help with the cost of living issues (in part caused by high gas costs) and I think reducing CO2 is secondary.

Additionally I suspect trains (at least electric ones) have far less C02 emissions than cars. I'm not sure how electrified Spains rail is.

[Arnt]

Your suspicion is correct, under conditions that generally apply.

Trains on level ground have extremely low rolling resistance. This means that if you have enough train sets for peak service, running the train sets all day often makes sense, because the additional cost (in terms of CO₂) of operating a train set for an additional hour is so low. It also means that adding passengers to a half-full train is practically free (again, in CO₂).

[belter]

"63.7% of the kilometers of railway lines managed by Adif and Adif AV are electrified. In addition, 83% of train-km is done by electric trains."

"Spain opts for massive electricity savings by using railway tech" https://www.banenor.no/en/startpage1/News/spain-opts-for-mas...

"Percentage of the railway lines in use in Europe in 2019 which were electrified, by country"

https://www.statista.com/statistics/451522/share-of-the-rail...

[lucb1e]

> at least electric ones

Diesel trains are better than diesel cars. Carrying a 1000 kg shell for an average of 1.something persons with its own engine and air resistance, and needing to be able to stop in a few hundred meters even at top speed, is less efficient than having one engine and one front side to push air out of the way and low rolling resistance for transporting many people, if you compare equal fuel sources.

But then cars are more flexible because you can take your portable shell anywhere at any time, not like the train. Then again, I like train rides (especially the Arriva trains between Sittard and Roermond are super comfy). There's a future for both, I'd say as someone who takes the bus and train at every opportunity (including for daily commute) but still finds himself in a car regularly.