> The main issue with train travel in the US is that many passengers are going to need a car when they reach their destination.

It's not a big issue as you may think. This is the case with air travel too, but people would gladly fly and then rent a car. The biggest barrier is the cost and the time it takes.

Unless you make the trains go 900km/h, you are talking about very different things. “I need to rent a car at the end of this train journey, which itself is about the speed of a car” is dumb — just rent the car, don’t waste money buying a train ticket as well, and travel on your own terms. So the only thing it offers is being cheaper than renting a car for one extra day for long journeys.

If they were the same cost I'd pick the train every time. I can relax, sleep, read a book or get some work done.

I really wanted to take a train or greyhound, wasn't super picky, for my last two trips but it was stupid. I had naively assumed the tradeoff was going to be adding about two days to the trip for travel there and back but in exchange it would be a lot cheaper than a flight. Nope. I guess. For some reason. Same travel days, same destinations. Not only were flights, obviously, faster but they were cheaper too.

Pay more for fewer departure/arrival options and turn a few hour hours into +1 day on each end seemed not worth the vibe.

Yeah if you live in the US then the trains and buses aren't really an option I guess.

It's substantially safer as well.

> So the only thing it offers is being cheaper than renting a car for one extra day for long journeys

Nope. It also offers not having to drive. I can read a book on a train, which I can't do in a small car even if I don't drive because I'll get car sick. I can even walk around and have luch in the train restaurant, go to the bathroom without having to stop.

Going by train still has the benefit of being able to do something while you travel. Especially relevant for solo business trips.

It depends. It's definitely usually easier to get to your hotel (often by walking) in NYC from Penn than from any of the airports. Less true in Boston (though there is a suburban stop south of the city) and in DC Reagan is pretty convenient on the metro. But, generally, downtown train stations with good transit tilt towards train travel relative to airports an hour out, especially without good transit.

I'd say the biggest issue is that trains are slow as fuck. If I take a plane I can get to either coast in a few hours from the Midwest. A train will take 1-2 days.

Trains are ideal for middle distances. About 1 or 2 hour flight equivalencies. DC to NYC, Tokyo to Osaka, SF to LA or Seattle, The Houston, San Antionio/Austin, Dallas triangle, etc. NYC to SF is not ideal for a high speed train, take an airplane then.

With a high speed train you can have downtown to downtown service, not need any security checks or slow onboarding / off-boarding processes and more, which eats about 1.5 hours minimum on each side.

> not need any security checks

That's basically true for now, but if rail travel became much more popular I am sure that would change.

I struggle to understand why you are so sure of this. Traveling by train is already far, far more popular than traveling by plane in most parts of the world, but you don't see security checks there.

Maybe if someone figures out how to slam a train into a skyscraper. This seems rather impractical though, as terrorist attacks go.

But that's what it took for air travel. Hijackings were even relatively common pre-9/11[1], and they didn't even bother to start locking the pilot cabin door (probably one of the only security measure implemented after 9/11 worth anything at all) until someone did something that extreme.

[1] https://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php

There's no way to make a coast-to-coast trip in the US as fast as a plane ever. It's like, what, 4500km? Even with the fastest regular passenger train in the world which runs at 350 km/h, this will be a 12 hour trip and that's not including the time the train will spend below that speed e.g. for stops. Compared to that, your average Airbus A380 hits 900 km/h as regular cruise speed, rendering that into a much better 5 hour trip.

Not to say high-speed rail doesn't have its uses - by far not, the chief one being replacing flights < 2 hours - but anything above the 2 hour flight time is better kept served by plane.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/worlds-fastest-trains...

You make good points but you forgot to factor in the 2 hours early that you need to show up at the airport. Getting on and off a train can take only minutes.

I've only ridden Amtrak once but I guess there are also security requirements that do take some time also (as opposed to most European countries).

I've also experienced lots of unexpected delays on flights whereas trains seem to be exceptionally on time (especially in a country like Germany). You're also assuming a direct flight also (though this is probably more related to cost which is another issue).

All in all, a coast to coast journey that takes 12 hours vs. 7 doesn't seem so bad if:

- I can spend maybe 8 of it sleeping in a bed - The difference is 5 hours - I can eat some real meals in a dining car - I can walk around reasonably

>I've only ridden Amtrak once but I guess there are also security requirements that do take some time also (as opposed to most European countries).

Not in my experience. You show up at the station and walk onto the train. Dread that changing one of these days based on some incident.

I semi-recently (two years ago) did an Amtrak trip from DC to LA and there was 0 security. I got there early because I didn't want to miss a leg of a 3 day train trip but there was no need.

A ten+ years ago they began demanding ID in our parts.

I’m visiting Peru soon. People choose to take day-long bus rides rather than a <2h flight getting from Lima to Cusco. I find it hard to believe that a train wouldn’t have at least some interest for budget travelers or people who value time less than most of us here

I live in Peru. There actually are incredibly expensive trains connecting Cusco/Puno/Arequipa. No one really uses them.

The problem is the terrain doesn't lend itself to trains at all without a super expensive investment, and the population of Peru is spread out so much once you leave Lima.

Flights in general are terrible in Latin America in terms of cost which is why the bus is popular. More so international but even domestic is pricey for the quality and distance. Plus stopping in Paracas/Nazca/Arequipa makes the bus a good way to cheaply hit those spots. Flying back to the start is a good move though

Any idea on why flights are so expensive there? I felt the same way traveling in Africa where it was around the same cost to fly back to any major EU capital as it was to go to any other major destination in Africa even when relatively close (e.g. Doula to Lagos) and I'm just wondering if there's some dynamic at play given you can get super cheap flights in Europe and somewhat in the U.S.

Africa seems even next level in terms of price.

I think lack of competition is a big problem. There aren't a ton of major airlines here. The population is also pretty spread out compared to Asia/Europe.

Domestic is usually okay. I just recently flew to the edge of Peru to visit Bolivia by land because it saved enough money to justify the extra time.

Interesting, thinking about it more I wonder if part of it is also that airline companies are one of the easier things to tax too? Many African govs have a tough time taxing local citizens and businesses, but companies, often major ones that are probably multinational and have to strictly follow laws and have major assets that can be seized are likely a better target for high taxation (what are you going to do, not land at the one airport in the city?). Between that and a lack of competition, I bet that explains a good portion of it.

If you also take into account the time you spend at an airport and the possible slowdown from the wind (900km/h is airspeed) while having a theoretical but technically feasible 450km/h high speed train as well as the time it takes to go to and from airports (you can put train stations downtown and near public transport) you can actually achieve parity in most situations, or near parity in others

Also, night trains.

Who cares if it takes 8 to 12 hours if you board the train, have dinner there, sleep a good night and have breakfast before arriving.

I've taken night trains and have liked them. But for a lot of business setting people would rather take an early morning flight than lose a night with family.

I'd say the cut off time is more like four hours, with the delays incurred by airport security and the fact that airports are huge and therefore more likely to be located further out from city centres.

In France they closed flights up to 500km competing with TGV. 500km is less than 2h in TGV, you show up 5mim before departure, you have no annoying security check and stupid questions asked, and you arrive in city center. Planes cannot compete with this offer.

Even more since SNCF launched their low cost TGV (Ouigo).

Sure, but building a rail network that is able to compete with four hours of flight is orders of magnitude more expensive than building out decent HSR between major clusters of larger cities (e.g. California HSR).

What about the west coast? Sf to sj? Sf to los angeles? Sf to san diego? Or seattle?

I personally always check trains when I travel and end up not traveling because of this. It just takes too long to take the train.

The Silver Service / Palmetto route mostly follows I-95 from NYC to Florida. [1]

There's also the Auto Train route from DC to Orlando which will transport passengers and their vehicles. [2]

1. https://www.amtrak.com/routes/silver-service-palmetto-train.... 2. https://www.amtrak.com/routes/auto-train.html