Are American trains slow by modern world standards?

[TSwenson]

One theory I have, based on little more than a knowledge of geography and some rudimentary history, is that those countries whose rail networks were substantially destroyed in WWII seem to have taken advantage of that destruction to build a more a modern (i.e. faster) network. They also tend to have higher population densities with cities located closer together which brings down the costs and increases the returns. The higher population also spreads the costs, via taxes.

Those countries that won WWII and largely escaped the destruction find themselves still saddled with 19th century railways. Those countries who also have lower population densities (e.g. USA, Australia) with their population centres spread much further apart (USA east coast being an exception), find themselves lacking any serious high speed networks. I did ride Amtraks "high speed" line from Boston to Washington (which was only high speed in one section) several years ago and found it "sadly lacking" in comparison to Japan's much older bullet train (which I have also traveled on).

In the case of the UK the population density and intercity distances are probably well suited to high speed rail but the cost of replacing the existing 19th century rail network is a major drag on progress. I have been following the progress of the UK's HS2 project - it started with much promise and building activity but it now seems to have fallen into "disrepair". Australia's proposed High Speed Rail linking just three main east coast cities - Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane - over a distance that would link at least a dozen European capitals has never progressed beyond its many expensive "feasibility Studies".

I note with interest (and approval) that France has banned all "short haul" passenger flights between cities that already have a high speed rail link.

My thoughts.

That is one way I have not thought to look at it... I guess the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command did a lot to advance European rail. While it hasn't been mentioned, I'd imagine that the former Soviet Union is in the same boat as the Western Allies.

 

[Frank_Dean]

A YouTube video discussing high-speed rail on the Spanish railway network, which some consider a third-tier country, video in English:

 

[Pendolino]

That is one way I have not thought to look at it... I guess the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command did a lot to advance European rail.

I don't think so: the existing lines were rebuilt as soon as possible where they were before WW2.

Since most air attacks focused on marshalling yards and locomotive repair facilities rather than on the lines themselves, which were easily repaired in a matter of hours, the latter were relatively undamaged (with the exception, of course, of bridges).
Usually, rail lines were actually destroyed where the retreating Germans sabotaged them thoroughly (many low-traffic branch lines in Central Italy were so thoroughly sabotaged they were never rebuilt in the post-war years).

In the '50s and '60s the existing lines were improved, correcting alignments (where possible), adopting heavier rails, updating signalling and traffic control systems and electrifying the main routes. There is a limit, however, to what can be achieve through such improvements: for conventional main lines, the maximum speed was set to 160-200 KPH (100 to 125 MPH).

The current high-speed lines were built since the late '70s on brand new alignments with much gentler gradients (usually, no more than 1.2%)[*] and curves (minimum radius is 5000 metres equal to ~3 miles).

[*] The French TGV lines use shorter by much steeper gradients (up to 3.5%) to minimise tunnel digging: this only slows down very little a TGV running at 300 KPH, but makes the journey much funnier (you can feel the seat pushing up, then you fell floating, like in a rollercoaster ride)

P.S. Don't forget the 15th Air Force: it made a pretty good job destroying the major rail centres in Northern Italy, Austria, Southern Germany and the Balkans.