I would make two distinctions by my experience ten years ago, the inter-provincial trains where you go seated, and the metropolitan trains where you go standing

I would make two distinctions by my experience ten years ago, the inter-provincial trains where you go seated, and the metropolitan trains where you go standing. In the first ones, even in the older trains that takes you to the most remote village, the separation between the seats is very generous, what made them very comfortable, which is strange since the height of the people is supposed to be lower than Europe. If they are renowned this I want to try it and keep criticizing the ridiculous separation of the seats here, like if it were planes... The second ones, metropolitan at rush hour, on the way to and from work hours, are hell. There is no other definition. But this is exclusively a matter about they would need triple the number of trains in rush hours. Nevertheless, as those companies managing it are private, I'm not sure if that number of trains increment for rush hours would be profitable (probably not due what keeps happening along decades). Off topic: Clearly in Europe the politics go against car ownership for the next years (bad decision). If trains keep being as they are now, all is gonna be a pure shit and pain. Does exist any kind of prevision over this? In the last years I started to think politicians in Brussels are not able to think. In this aspect I envy the Chinese "politicians" prevision.