The more rail improves the more I'm tempted to take it, with flying you have the additional time cost of just dealing with the airports, turn up an hour early, then get put in the metal tube where they won't serve you drink till they're up in the air, and you can't bring your own.

A train may take longer sometimes, but I find the whole thing much less stressful, you're not strapped to the seat, you have leg room, even a table, power sockets, bring your own food and drink, and the prices are competitive.

It still takes longer than I'd like to get from Switzerland to the UK, and that's mostly due to a lengthy change in Paris.

I think in France, and prob other countries too, their moving to ban domestic flights that can be done on rail instead

It's hard to overstate how different the European rail experience is from the American experience. SF<->LA is a 50m, $50 flight. It's approx. 9h and $400 by rail. In practice, the last time I attempted that route it took 15h because the train had issues halfway and none of the assigned seats had power or legroom.

Even the Seattle to Portland route, probably the best on the west coast, has issues. A flight takes about 50 mins and can be had for about $60. Alaska Airlines runs flights at least once an hour all day long. From 6am until midnight.

The train takes 3.5 hours (often closer to 4 and I've had it take more than 5 just because of freight priority). The train makes 4 trips a day (one being a longer route that is usually delayed) and the timing means that any business trip will probably require an overnight stay. The train is only $27 though because both states (especially WA) heavily subsidize the route.

In the end, it really comes down to where in the metro areas your trip begins and ends as to which works out best. For us, the train station saves about an hour of ground transport time compared to the airports and we can arrive much closer to departure, so the train works best. For plenty of others, the airport will be faster and probably easier logistically.

wow wtf, american trains are so bad. the government should force those companies to fix it

I don't really have a preference, but having done my first couple flights in close to 20 years in the past 3 months, I was struck by how much has changed in that time.

PreCheck and Global Entry weren't around when we went to Bermuda in August 2001. It was a trip notable not only for its proximity to 9/11 - by chance, my bag was searched either before we left L.F Wade in St. George's or on arrival back in Newark, but this happened without my knowledge and I only found out about it because customs had repacked it included a note informing me of this fact inside. - and also because a trip to camp the previous week was the start of an ear infection which burst my ear drum on the plane going down.

Fun times.

However, I quite like the idea of passport control on a train happening before you embark on the departing leg of a trip. With those formalities out of the way, just collect your bags at the destination and you're free to go.

I don't know if the FAA or TSA would consider this too burdensome to implement, but it's an idea.

They've been trying to implement passport control before boarding the train between NYC and Montreal for a while, but nothing seems to have come of it. It was an Obama-era priority.

I haven't taken that train in many years, but they basically stop the train at the border and immigration agents board and check everyone's passport. It's scheduled to take 2 hours. Really stupid. It's a 45 minute flight, and you go through US immigration in Canada before boarding the flight.

That's crazy. Perhaps a good comparison is the channel tunnel, e.g. going from London to Paris you go through security similar (a bit less onerous) to that at an airport before boarding.

That was the case even with the UK in the EU (maybe it's not any less onerous than an airport now actually, idk) but otherwise intra-EU over land is not an issue, almost necessarily. (But then, you might think that about Canada/US.)

Vancouver’s station does that: preclearance and then sit in a sequestered cage to get on the train.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Central_Station

There are some disadvantages, such as not being able to pickup anymore passengers until crossing the border. Probably a non-issue with Vancouver close to the border.

What about that piece of the US that's isolated from the rest, quite close to Vancouver I think, Fort something attached to the South of BC, accessible only through it. Do you have to go through something like that twice, or can you go between it and the main body of the US more easily (without stops perhaps)?

Or (facepalm, more obviously) Alaska for that matter?

Point Roberts is probably what you’re thinking of.

Popular with Canadians to send parcels to and pickup gas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington

A school bus runs from there to mainland USA and I suspect there’s an informal agreement to drive without stopping through Canada so they don’t have to bother too excessively with clearances.

The Adirondack train is suspended since 2020 and had a commercial speed of 56 km/h (35 mph).

On some routes between France and Switzerland police and customs inspection seems to take place on board. It's even better, no time wasted.

https://www.tgv-lyria.com/ch/en/travelling/on-board-support/...

> However, I quite like the idea of passport control on a train happening before you embark on the departing leg of a trip. With those formalities out of the way, just collect your bags at the destination and you're free to go.

It's better than that. Space on board is at less of a premium so train carriages can be made with plenty of room for luggage alongside passengers. No need to check baggage.

Yeah, well, that's what I'm saying really.

It's going to be slower and more expensive so not so many people are going to want to do it so why build more of it.

If the major stops are closer together, 'a journey' is shorter and cheaper and beats air travel, and many more people will pay for it.