Ah. Depends on what you mean by "highly efficient". From both memory and a quick Google on "2022 u.s. railroad problems", there are plenty of major problems with the U.S. freight RR system. Especially if you try to assume that it has (or can easily add) a bunch of spare capacity.
(Short version - each of the major U.S. freight RR's is more-or-less a monopoly in the part of the U.S. which it serves. If management relentlessly optimizes for profitability, and doesn't much care about customer service, shipping delays, sustainable staffing levels, etc... Well, I'm sure RR management has enjoyed some fat profit-sharing bonus checks.)
4/5th of EU rail traffic is passenger trains which changes a great deal about how each system operates. The EU actually has more track miles per person than the US and vastly more electrified lines, they even pay less for rail infrastructure projects etc, but freight traffic very much plays second fiddle.
The US on the other hand allows for much heavier and slower freight trains. It’s very good at moving heavy stable bulk loads like coal and corn long distances, but less so about moving perishable goods. US freight trips to Mexico can take as long as 45-60 days but those trips are really cheap per ton/mile.
The US’s rail network isn’t that different than the EU’s.
The average freight rail trip in the EU are much shorter which makes rail less competitive relative to trucks. That has nothing to do with the rail network and is instead a function of EU’s economy.
The difference in utilization largely comes down to geography and politics. America’s flyover states and high population coasts just fit rail really well.
Sure, maybe that explains why Europe has made more progress with their inland transportation network. But what I said is still true. Transporting freight via river systems is cheaper and greener than using road and rail. The gap will widen as energy and transportation costs continue to increase.
The United States has the largest internal waterways system in the world, and we basically only use it for bulk goods.
> Transporting freight via river systems is cheaper and greener than using road and rail.
True - so long as the navigable waterways reach the points which you need to ship from & to. And the cargo isn't particularly time-sensitive. And exceptional droughts do not lower the rivers so far that "navigable" is only on paper, and not on the no-longer-there water. That last issue is getting to be a major problem this year.
Edit: Also recall that in the northern parts of the U.S., even the largest navigable waterways may close down for a few months every winter, due to ice / winter storms / etc.
I don’t understand: why would rail pollution be worse in Europe, which has electrification initiatives for even freight rail, than in the US, where the rail duopolies and monopolies use old diesel locomotives and never invest in meaningful system upgrades?
Ok, sure. But wouldn’t a large natural gas electric turbine be even more efficient?
The thing about electric motors is the energy source is abstracted. So even if you’re generating electricity with gas, it’s usually much more efficient than a small localized engine.
So I think my point stands, if EU is electrifying its networks, I don’t understand how the US could possibly be more efficient.
The thing is both you and the GP seem to be handwaving it. Efficient in what sense? Is freight rail in Europe slower, more expensive, dirtier, and if so how much? Or do they just measure/account for externalities differently? It doesn't require an essay to put assertions about efficiency in context.
