> but planes are usually a better solution than high-speed trains

I was traveling this week with both, an Airbus from Lufthansa and high-speed trains from Siemens.

And which one was taxed and which one was subsidized?

Both? Good and broad infrastructure is expensive. I was using a new plane with onboard Internet, two modern airports, three modern high-speed trains, three large train stations, driving through a clean and nice landscape. My local train line in my home town is fully digitalized and prepared for autonomous trains. Plus I made a stop in a town where Carl Friedrich Gauß was born in 1777, which was inspiring.

> love trains -- but planes are usually a better solution than high-speed trains.

Not for short to medium distances they're not. Everything under 3-4 hours of train is faster, more comfortable and with much less hassle than flying (going to an airport, security checks, uncomfortable seating, interruptions for take off and landing, long queueing).

> I love trains -- but planes are usually a better solution than high-speed trains.

Sure if you think its a good idea to blow lots of carbon in the air and a punch of emissions with led all over the continent.

Trains absolutely make sense in the waste majority cases in Europe.

And having high speed dedicated lanes also has the additional benefit of removing capacity from older lines and allowing more regional and more cargo.

Building trains, both conventional and high speed is a huge win.

P.S:

The current lead in terms of electric viable plains I would say is Heart Aerospace from Sweden.