Sure they do. Worldwide, Acela is a peculiar exception, not a rule (and no if you're going to put your train on old low-speed rails and give priority to freight you definitely don't need high-speed trainsets, I'm not going to disagree with that one, turns out only in the US do people do that, go figure)
Because megaslow trains are pointless for long distances?
> They aren't really cost efficient and probably won't be built at all.
Considering the US's love for trains, I just assume you guys won't build any either way, that's usually a pretty safe bet.
> Even 150km/h means you could go Chicago to Cincinatti in 3 hours (vs 4.5 by car) or San Francisco to LA in under 5 hours (vs 6 hours by car). At 5 hours, that beats the hassle of an airplane, IMO.
When the flight is 1h15~1h30, you'll be a very small minority, the general annoyance of transport and loss of the whole day means flight pretty much always win. Lower that to ~2h30 city center to city center, however, and train might become competitive, especially without security check and with better cabin comfort.
Well, you specifically mentioned trains in Germany. I've ridden quite a few, and I can tell you, they almost never go that fast, and not for long periods of time. With all the stop and go, all the slow tracks, quiet areas, and whatever else, the average speed isn't that high. So in general the US should probably not focus on superfast trains, since they don't pan out usually, but just getting some decent trains that are on-time and reasonably fast.
Sure they do. Worldwide, Acela is a peculiar exception, not a rule (and no if you're going to put your train on old low-speed rails and give priority to freight you definitely don't need high-speed trainsets, I'm not going to disagree with that one, turns out only in the US do people do that, go figure)
> Average speed is the key thing.
And the average speed is higher if the train can reach a higher top speed. All of the top average service speeds are high-speed trains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_veh...
> Why are we only impressed by megafast trains?
Because megaslow trains are pointless for long distances?
> They aren't really cost efficient and probably won't be built at all.
Considering the US's love for trains, I just assume you guys won't build any either way, that's usually a pretty safe bet.
> Even 150km/h means you could go Chicago to Cincinatti in 3 hours (vs 4.5 by car) or San Francisco to LA in under 5 hours (vs 6 hours by car). At 5 hours, that beats the hassle of an airplane, IMO.
When the flight is 1h15~1h30, you'll be a very small minority, the general annoyance of transport and loss of the whole day means flight pretty much always win. Lower that to ~2h30 city center to city center, however, and train might become competitive, especially without security check and with better cabin comfort.