As others have said. Freight is first in the US. I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo. Except for special routes, passenger travel by rail is only for those dedicated individuals.

> I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo.

They absolutely do: unlike the US where more freight is transported by rail than truck, the opposite is true in Europe. And personally I think this is the right tradeoff. The efficiencies of rail over road vehicles scale up with mass. The US has 200 car freight trains hauling 400 shipping containers at a time; compared to 400 semi trucks that’s a massive improvement. European freight rail isn’t even capable of this level of scale; their railroads have maximum train lengths well below the US average.

Freight is also much less fussy than passengers when it comes to scheduling, comfort, or speed, which is why this level of scale is possible for freight rail and not passenger rail.

There's not a lot of electrified track in the US. The distances are just too great and our railroads are freight-first, passengers second (the opposite of Europe).

Even so, the passenger trains don't make abrupt starts/stops like the freight trains do, because people would complain. :)

Actually there used to be a lot more electrified track in the US but the freight railroads tore it out to reduce capital ratios and allow tall-stacking containers.

> our railroads are freight-first, passengers second (the opposite of Europe).

Common misconception. Amtrak actually has preference on US rails, but the track operators frequently ignore the law.

It's been the law since 1973.

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_r...

It's the difference between "should be" and "reality". (I blame precision scheduled railroading for creating freight trains so long that they can't use sidings)

I believe they did this specifically so they would not have to use the sidings

Quality of the rails makes a big difference, take the train from Ukraine to Poland and it's suddenly super smooth once you cross over into the EU

Track quality and maintenance by US mainlines are more Ukraine/Poland camp.

In the places where the average commenter lamenting US rail lives the track are crap because there's no reason to have everything be "cruise at 80mph" level smooth when you can't get a train up to such speeds before the next curve and even if you could there's invariably other rail traffic or a grade crossing soon thereafter.

In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing in 4hr instead of 8 has enough positive impact on the rest of the system that they deem it worth paying for.

It makes sense if you think about everything in terms of time between points.

95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.

Freight trains carry heavy loads and have cars that are not inspected to have perfectly maintained wheels to the same level as trains that run on tracks for only passenger traffic, especially high speed rail (which runs on dedicated , highly engineered tracks).

The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't as economical in north america is because rather than sleeping on a train, it's cheaper and more reliable to just fly in a few hours across the country.

HSR makes sense in the dense US northeast or between Windsor and Quebec city in Canada (and probably California if it wasn't politically ruined with it's meandering lines), but sleeper trains for further distances would have to be dirt cheap to compete with flying. It'd essentially be for college kids or poorer people.

Most people who do long distance trains in North America are doing it as a cruise-like vacation/adventure.

>The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't as economical in north america...

That's a choice the country has made by subsidizing some kinds of transit more than others. Rail could be cheaper if we priced in externalities.

Why would really be cheaper if externalities were priced in - I can see cars and planes being more expensive but how would rail be cheaper?

Economies of scale.

If alternatives get more expensive more people use rail, and the cost per rail rider drops.

Or it just means nobody travels.

People will travel one way or another. They'll just prioritize the factors that are important to them.

Or the whole market shrinks because demand is fairly elastic.

To some degree.

At least in the US, people will tend to drive--perhaps shorter distances--if long distance travel gets too expensive.

Historically US passenger service was secondary to express mail service. Without express mail service provided by the same trains, passenger service became unprofitable.

The timeline roughly matches up with that argument, but mail and people transitioned for similar reasons.

>95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.

Freight doesn't mean slow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...

It does when your passenger train has to wait on a siding for another train to pass.

> 95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth".

All over the US, the tracks are being upgraded to 110mph standards. It just a slow process: 5 miles here, 20 miles there. Whenever they can find the money they do a new section. Every single grade crossing must be upgraded, every single curve regraded, etc. Amtrak can run at 90mph on those sections with the locomotives they currently have.

Sometimes they string together enough upgraded rail. Essentially everything in Michigan has been running 110mph for 10+ years, with the newer Siemens locomotives that can handle it. Also, the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service - the entire time they are in Illinois they are running 110mph.

Upgrading 5 miles of rail doesn't make the news. That doesn't mean it didn't happen :)

> In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing

Europe is densely populated, you'll rarely see 300mi of nothing. High speed rail is still common. Only realistically limited by cost, not by the difficulty to get the train up to speed before the next curve, or other rail traffic, or grade crossings.

Pretty much. It is obviously a for-profit freight system - In areas where the RR's top-dollar freight customers (especially domestic parcel delivery companies) want speed, they'll happily spend big to make that happen. And in areas where the RoI on speed (whether upgrades, or ongoing maintenance of existing track) ain't there, they can be happy with 25MPH maximums:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...

Poland is in the EU. The point being made was that once you cross over from Ukraine into Poland, you notice a big improvement in the track quality.

Many American freight trains are diesel-electric where the locomotive supplies electricity but the motors are distributed. Notably train routes in Western Europe tend to be electrified and get all their energy from a catenary.

99 % of Class I freight locomotives in North America are diesel-electrics where a diesel genset provides power to electric motors on the locomotive. There are - to a rounding error - no freight locomotives provide electrical power to motors on the rake.

Even with a traditional diesel, you can get a good ride. I took the sleeper train from Istanbul to Pamukalle (Laodicea), and even over the single track sections it was smooth. It might be down to the driver planning ahead - this one was definitely proud of his work!

European sleeper trains are usually also powered by locomotives, and the individual cars don't have motors, so I think the jerk motion you've experienced is caused my poor couplings or something else.

You’re talking about EMU/DMUs versus locomotives. Higher-speed travel is less efficient with an MU than with a locomotive-pulled train. Higher-speed is important when North America is so large.

See also: https://thebeaverton.com/2019/08/european-relatives-visiting...

American passenger trains are significantly slower than in Europe.

I took a train from New York to Miami last October in a "roomette". Sleep was fine, better than I get on UK sleepers. Food was amazingly good.

For those who don't know: The "roomette" is still your own room, with two beds that are couches during the day, and the porter converts them and makes your bed for you. Roomettes also have a toilet in them, so if you're with someone else they may be going to the dining car for a few minutes here and there. The car itself has a shower in it as well that shared by everyone on that car. It's really fun taking a shower at 80mph.

I was on my own, so it was great. About 28 hours with various delays. Had the bed up top overnight, a few beers watching a couple of films on my laptop in the evening, nice dinner, great steak. Went to bed just after Washington, woke up somewhere around Georgia, nice breakfast, back to my "office" and a decent days work (no meetings as it was a Sunday, but I was sshed into many servers and didn't see any major issues with phone connectivity).

Basically a moving hotel and office in one.

There are more expensive rooms with private shower but that wasn't really value for money.

I suspect the roomette would feel more cramped for two people, but it was better than spending 24 hours trying to relax and work in a new york hotel room.