I like the idea that bus just magically floats to the destination as if roads are any cheaper to maintain than railway.

Its not one bus for any sort of remotely regular service, and even if it was its not one driver either, unless you don't run the service one or more days a week or while they are on holiday or while the bus is out of action for repairs or servicing.

I am not going to pretend that a bus isn't cheaper, because it is, but its not massively cheaper than an existing railway service in good repair.

Part of the problem when the UK went through the same changes was that the local branch lines had 4 people working each train, and that train might service less than 50 people during a quiet day. Sure, a bus can have 1 person working it, but so can a train. Stations also used to be heavily maned, it was ridiculous.

Rather than fixing the issue we moved to Motorways, minster in charge of it owned a company building them, funny that and buses that were cancelled for the same lack of demand.

Public transport (which includes buses) is either expected to be a cost to the tax payer or its not practical long term. The only other alternative offered to rural areas is the car, totally shit idea for mass transport.

Every route that is still profitable has been enshitified to such a degree its now extremely expensive and unpleasant to use.

Wouldn't railway be the perfect mode of transport to automate though?

Operating a bus line also costs money. Bus drivers don't work for free either, nor do buses just grow on trees. So many of those costs also exist for bus lines. In fact due to buses having less capacity than trains, you need more staff to transport the same number of people by bus than by train.

Trains are more comfortable than all road traffic because road traffic always uses bumpy roads that degrade comfort, rail traffic always glides on smooth metal rails.