The USA has to learn that modern passenger trains work in certain environments and not in others. Use them in commuter corridors. Use them where journey time station to station is 4 (maybe 5) hours at most. Run them frequently, not just one in the morning and again in the late afternoon. Forget transcon. Forget stations that only get one train a day. Forget trains that only call at 2am.

Also recognise that trains (public transport in general) are not the universal solution. If you’re at a function that finishes late in the evening somewhere in rural Montana and need to go home 50 miles you’re going to either have to stay over and take public transport next day or, much, much more likely use a car. But don’t get me started on the types of car needed!

that amsterdam paris link, the dutch part is 3 years later than expected (and at an massive amount more than planned) so the fast part is brussels paris.

Al these trains require subsidies, the channel tunnel has gone bankrupt to shed debt. Even with subsidies i can fly to londen for about 120 euro, the train is 140 but that is a price which is for late arrival early return, want to have more time, sure double that price…

For this system to work in the us, forget about iron rail, go for maglev

The plan calls for 86 daily train trips in each direction at speeds ranging from 150 – 300 mph. It would cut the driving time between San Diego to San Francisco more than half to 3:30 and cost a small fraction of an airfare. If that becomes a reality, I believe it will attract many users.

Some proponents believe high speed rail can be a profitable private venture if maglev technology is used. Since no friction occurs with maglev technology, maintenance costs are very low and the speeds are much higher. Private projects are being proposed for L.A. to Las Vegas and L.A. to San Diego http://www.shaperyenterprises.com/sdlamaglev.org/m1intro.htm

I’ve written a lot on this subjecy in my blog: http://richmondtransits.blogspot.com/tags/railways

To me, there are a few truths:
- Rail is less polluting in general (it takes less energy to move something on iron-to-iron railways), even more so if lines are electrified and electricity comes from renewables or nuclear

- Rail competes with air easily for distances less than 1000 km / 600 miles

- The city-centre to city-centre networks work well in dense connurbations with adequate public transport between the city centre and suburbs. When megapolis have no centre, advantages are less obvious.

- For the end-user, convenience/speed and price must be right, unlike in the UK where people choose cars because public transport fails them, despite congestion and high cost of the personal convenience called “car”.

- Railways are never going to turn up a profit, they need subsidies and have to be built upon long periods to become alternatives to automobiles. Just like roads and street lighting. Of course, single lines can be profitable under some cicumstances, but it’s missing the point about the advantage of an integrated public transport network.

Put me in the category of wishing to take high-speed rail, or even medium speed rail.