[b-side]

Indeed, trains for passengers can only work for tiny low-population countries like China and Japan.

[DandyDev]

Trains work very well in densely populated areas, even if its logistically challenging.

I live in the Netherlands and despite what detractors would tell you, it’s impressive how on time the Dutch railways can keep such a complex schedule.

[wazdra]

Indeed a great system, but oh so expensive...

[dagw]

Trains can work great for either passengers or freight. The problems arise when you try to do both at the same time (on the same line). If the US was to dramatically improve its passenger service it would have to either build an entirely new set of parallel tracks (which would be very expensive) or dramatically worsen its rail freight offering, which would greatly increase the number of trucks of the road.

[Tade0]

There's a train line close to me which runs on tracks parallel to a freight line.

The company maintaining the latter was asked several times if their infrastructure could be used, but they refused each time, so the passenger line, which was always there, just in a state of disrepair, had to be refurbished at great expense.

I'm happy with the result though because like in every track having just one line, the trains are amazingly punctual.

[philwelch]

And if you’re going to pick one, there are plenty of reasons to pick freight. A single freight train might have 70-200 cars, each of which can carry 1-2 full-size intermodal containers (if not a comparably massive tanker car or something). Trains are more efficient than road vehicles in terms of energy consumption, wear and tear on the road (or railroad), and labor cost, but these efficiencies scale up considerably based on vehicle weight, and the weight of a few hundred loaded intermodal containers is a very high number indeed. Not to mention that intermodal containers are a lot less fussy about hospitality than passengers!