Note, however, that it's rail travel in North America that has been static since 1930 -- if you applied the same exercise to Western Europe you'd see dramatic improvements in surface travel times since 1960, with the spread of electrification and in-cab signaling and then the expansion of the TGV, LGV and ICE networks.

Indeed. Although there would be little point for the distance involved (compared to air travel), a cross-US high-speed rail line using the best existing technology on a non-stop trip would go through in ~15h (the Wuhan–Guangzhou line non-stop service averaged 194mph station to station, although non-stop service has ended and the best average commercial train service has gone back to the french LGV Est with 174mph)

Don't forget, cross-country air travel generally requires at least an additional 3 hours of travelling outside the city to and from the airport, checkin, security, taxiing, unloading, etc.

A five hour cross country flight really takes 8 hours, so a 15 hour train between city centers doesn't sound so bad. At half the distance, a 7 hour train vs a 5.5 hour plane excursion, sounds delightful.

This is true, but also applies to high speed rail. There are tremendous space requirements applicable to HSR that don't apply to regular rail. Look at HSR developments in China, Taiwan, etc, most of which have stations located well outside densely populated areas (except at points of extreme political/economic importance). Getting to a HSR station will be non-trivial also, not unlike getting to an airport today. HSR directly into a place like Midtown Manhattan is unlikely.

There's HSR right into the middle of London. Big cities can have HSR.

For traveling from coast to coast there would be little point, but for shorter distances within the US high-speed rail should beat air travel.

> For traveling from coast to coast there would be little point, but for shorter distances within the US high-speed rail should beat air travel.

Absolutely, which is why I pointed out that for the distance it wouldn't be a good idea: cross-continental high-speed rail makes little sense, the sweet spot currently tops out around 1000 miles (and even then it depends, it works well in Europe because train stations can be in the city center — where things happen and mass transportation is developed — versus airport being much further out in the suburbs or countryside, I do not know if it'd work as well in the US where the most affluent segments of the population tends to live in the suburbs rather than the city and cities are more often designed around car travel).

I dunno. 15 hours in relative comfort might win sometimes over 4 hours of crampedness and annoyance.

The bigger question would be price, which I suspect would be higher than average air fares.

I've tried both, for the Sweden<->Germany route. I've usually been disappointed that the train was more expensive than a flight. The train has much fewer luggage restrictions, but lugging lots of luggage around when changing trains is also a hassle, while with flights they do that for you. With 4 hours of travel, you don't need to worry about food. With 15, you do. Though you can bring a full meal, including drinks and a knife, on the train. Plus, there's AC power for the laptop.

My break-even point is at about 6-8 hours by train, vs. a plane. That gets me to Hamburg.

I think there would be tremendous value in a train service departing NYC after work, stopping in Philadelphia and DC, then offering a decent dinner and breakfast and reaching LA before lunchtime the next day. This is possible with speeds similar to the French TGV.

Hardly static, passenger rail has been in collapse in the U.S. The eastern US is dotted with shuttered train stations and the Amtrak monopoly can barely keep its lights on.