Amtrak works fine where the states are small and the cities close together. I’ve frequently taken the train in the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, with Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York, New Haven and Providence in between. Each of those cities is in a different state. That takes about 7 hours, which is tolerable. It’s just about 400 miles, which in Texas wouldn’t get you from El Paso to San Antonio. That train system is well-used, profitable, and credible.And there's no credible rail system (yes, I've subjected myself to Amtrak, and no, it isn't a credible rail system)
I just did five European countries over the course of six weeks. Great time, easy transpo, etc.
I have taken Amtrak from Houston to Tucson. The train wasn’t really slow, but it’s 1100 miles and it takes 20 hours. It takes 20 hours to go from Paris to Berlin by train, according to the search I just did, and that’s half the distance. Had a hurricane threat not canceled them that weekend, the flight I had booked would have got me there in less than three hours. People don’t take Amtrak because e.g. Southwest Airlines is cheaper and faster.
When I visited Switzerland I asked a friend there about the practicalities of using transit as a tourist, and his respond was hell no, rent a car. Which was easy. Europe has great train corridors for people going from city to city, taking advantage of the relative nearness, but lots of people there own cars, too. It entirely depends on what you want to see in a vacation situation.
I have completely enjoyed my trips to Europe, but it’s a very different way to live. Americans are more like Australians in that regard.
Rick “Europe is small and densely packed” Denney