[lmm]

> Kumming and Chiangsa are part of Shanghai–Kunming railway. The trains between these two cities don't stop at either, but connect all the stations on the larger railway.

Which would be the same for a North American rail network. Kunming was Minneapolis in this analogy, trains to Toronto could carry on to Boston or Montreal or New York just as trains to Changsa carry on to Shanghai.

> The original assertion is that train can probably replace airplane on this route.

I don't think anyone claimed that it would replace planes completely. It could be competitive, it could be an option for people who want it.

[signatoremo]

The OP’s claim is that:

> Maybe we should build more railways. The ground is more stable than the air.

As if this accident could have been avoided if there were trains between Minneapolis and Toronto. I am saying that is wrong, because the passengers on this route wouldn’t take train. High speed trains would help if there is enough demand. There is not. Your examples are for a different market that don’t apply. You didn’t prove otherwise.

Trains are good. I love trains.

> It could be competitive, it could be an option for people who want it

Not for this route.

[lmm]

> As if this accident could have been avoided if there were trains between Minneapolis and Toronto

You don't have to replace every flight to reduce the amount of flights, or to give people an alternative.

> High speed trains would help if there is enough demand. There is not. Your examples are for a different market that don’t apply. You didn’t prove otherwise.

The population sizes are the same. The geography is similar. The differences are political choices, not immutable facts.