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.