EVs are worse for the environment (and other EV related myths)

Any per km figures for rail for example should presumably include the associated carbon footprint and energy cost of the railway stations […] or are these issues never counted as part of the overall and just left in limbo ?

Left in limbo, for the most part. In the context of general economic efficiency, coach services were rated way better than rail because they benefited from the inherent flexibility of an existing road network allowing for rapid changes of route in respons to customer demand. But other than the notional financial and ecological cost of a brand new road (motorway, bypass, expanded capacity, etc …) I've never seen anyone try to work out the carbon footprint of a road that was originally built by the Romans and is still in use today.

On the other hand, neither have I seen anyone attribute a value to infrastructure that isn't being used any more, just sits there getting old and poorly maintained. You'll sometimes see EV vs. ICE studies refer to the cost of eventually decommissioning a hydrocarbon service station, but rarely is there any heed paid to the millions of tonnes of metal, plastic and rubber just sitting on a square of concrete for twenty hours of every day because it's considered "normal" these days for every Western adult to have their own private motor vehicle available for use whenever they want. Should we assign an environmental cost to assets, infrastructure and fuel that are "on hold" for our future convenience?

No matter which side you're on, when you get into one of these [X] is better/worse than [Y] arguments, as soon as you start digging into the detail, the situation reveals itself to be a hell of a lot more complex than a ten-word headline.