eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:08 pm
Something else to consider in each of those examples.... freight moved by rail is minimal.
That is incorrect and differs vastly from country to country.
Rail freight is minimal in some countries, like the UK.
Others like Sweden has a modal share in the same ballpark as the US - and for some of the same reasons: a large amount of raw materials from the mining industry, forestry etc, long distances through empty space between industrial and population centers, and also a well-working intermodal system. Plus a very good passenger system.
Germany has a pretty robust freight network too, due to its large industrial base, and even if the modal share is lower than in the US, minimal it certainly isn't. And it has a very busy, if somewhat overburdened passenger system.
The transalpine restrictions on trucks in Austria and Switzerland gives rail a very large share of the im- and export land based traffic in Italy, but that is politically determined and as such a poor comparison.
Russia has rail as its backbone of its transportation system, and without knowing I would think the modal share is higher here, and contrary to the claims of a previous poster the passenger system is also widespread and much used. But the economy and social conditions are so different that it isn't really a good comparison either, exept for the vast distances.
And consider that for quite a few of the European countries the busiest freight corridors are also the busiest passenger corridors. An example is the transit corridor though Denmark, which otherwise is one of the countries with minimal freight service. But on the corridor, which for the major part also overlaps the corridor connecting the country's largest cities, freight trains have two slots an hour and so does up to five passenger trains on the busiest sections. Are there conflicts? - yes. But both actually run with a decent precision.