Trains
Somebody was supposed to occupy the seat next to mine at York, but didn't turn up. So, I can spread out. It's also nice that the 'reserved' sign on the head of the seat shows whence and to where the seat is reserved... they were supposed to get off in 'Berwick on Tw', wherever that is. (On Tweed, I suppose, but that still doesn't mean much to me, unless this train somehow ends up on the New South Wales/Queensland border... oh, perhaps Tweed is the English/Scottish border, and that Australian border was named after it.)
This is one of the little niceities that UK trains have over rail systems I've used in other countries. Another is power points at every seat. First class train carriages feature this in the Netherlands, but I'm travelling second class here. But this rail system does have many of the advantages of most European trains: they're clean, frequent, fast and go all the way in to major cities.
I'm going to compare this to Amtrak California, which has large and comfortable trains that are just as clean as this one. The route I'm taking is about the same distance as San Francisco to Los Angeles. But these trains run every half an hour, not just three or four times per day. They do the journey in four hours, not seven, and these aren't even Europe's famous fast trains... they whisk along at a decent-but-not-remarkable 160km/h or so. And they run to the centre of each city; you don't have to make bus connections at each end, like you do for most of the Amtrak services, which start in the East Bay suburb of Emeryville, and often only go as far as Bakersfield, which is a good 100km short of the outskirts of Los Angeles. It's nice that Amtrak buses fan out to many points in each city, but somehow, having an efficient metro system at each end just makes more sense, and this is how it's done in Europe.
Metro systems also make connections between rail services easier. These are often needed in European cities: I had to take a metro in Paris, because my train from Barcelona arrived in Gare d'Austerlitz, and my train to Amsterdam left from Gare d'Noord. Similarly, the suburban train I took from nitoda's place in London terminated at London Bridge, but the train I'm on now left from Kings Cross, and I had to take the metro between them. The London connection was easier than the Parisian connection: there were lifts at both metro stations (I definitely could've used these in Paris, dragging two heavy bags) and the metro fare was included in the rail ticket, which I could just stick into the fare gates. But in most American cities, where these sorts of connections are often necessary, I would normally have to leave the rail system altogether and catch a bus or taxi.
This is perhaps the one benefit Australian trains have over European and American trains: every city, no matter how big, has a central station that all trains go to. They're on par with the US for speed (i.e, they're not really any faster than driving), they rate between the US and Europe for frequency, and trail behind both for promptness. Australian trains are usually not as clean or modern as European trains or West Coast US intrastate trains, but they're better than East Coast US trains as far as that goes, and on par with American and Canadian interstate/provincial trains.
The big benefit that North American long-distance trains have over Europe and Australia are lounge carriages (or lounge cars, as the Americans call them). These are carriages that aren't dining carriages, aren't canteens, aren't sleepers, and don't have your standard rows of seats. They have seats at oblique angles and are designed for socialising and enjoying scenery, which abounds in North America. (Actually, American trains are more spacious in general-like their cars, I suppose.) Some of these carriages even have windowed ceilings or video parlours, and they really do add value to a journey.
I would still trade those for Europe's affordable, if crammed, sleeper carriages. That's the one big thing that stands out as far as cost goes: sleepers have never made financial sense for me in Australia or North America, at least as a sole traveller, and they're perfectly reasonable in Europe. Other than that, trains cost more or less the same globally, except Perú, where they're bloody expensive, and the amazingly comfortable and affordable South American style coaches make a lot more sense.
But overall, Europe is the big winner as far as trains go. I really wish Australia and North America had trains like Europe-it's one of the reasons why, frankly, Europe is the most civilised continent on earth. And I haven't even mentioned wifi-I've found it on at least a third of the trains I've been on here, even the local ones, and it's becoming more abundant all the time. Half the time it's even been free. Australia and North American have a lot of catching up to do, and it really is necessary, since private vehicle and air travel just aren't sustainable.