[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_freight_transport#Regiona...
But whatever the actual ranking, the volume of rail freight is very high.
The US ranks decently high in passenger miles as well, but that's just because we're a huge country, not because trains are regularly used by people in the US.
Not the long-distance Amtraks across the country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_us...
If you remove that particular outlier (that basically drowns out everything else), the US's rail is pretty trash.
Or look at coverage; US rail companies will abandon profitable routes because they're fixated on improving the average profitability instead of absolute profits.
Nobody who knows much about railways is impressed by the US's railway system. Electrification is cheaper in the long run, and yet the US railway system is <1% electrified, because it's not profitable in the short term and all the railway companies are horrifically allergic to anything that won't be profitable within the decade. The US rail system is slowly falling apart, because while it makes sense in the long term to maintain it, it won't earn a profit now.
Each place is adapted to the geography.
In Europe, the coal or ore may well be loaded onto a barge. The rivers here follow some useful routes, and the continent is surrounded by sea on three sides.
The USA doesn't have such convenient waterways.
Similarly, a container ship will make multiple stops around Europe, so there's less need to have a huge freight railway from Greece to the Netherlands.
I think most people, including journalists, don’t know or think much about trains. Or whatever they know it’s about passenger trains and they compare those with European ones.