Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable. Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investm

Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable. Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place? This is the problem with CA's high speed rail line. They ended up placing both ends in the middle of nowhere when even the LA->SF route would have barely gotten the ridership needed to work. Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist. If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do?