Interfaces used in train operation facilities[1] quite different from this but are similar across systems, and this one is more or less just a visualization.
At personal levels, you either type in (time, origin, goal) into a map or a route finder app and get on trains in sequence as the app says, or do a rudimentary graph search in your head[2] and hope you don't hit 10 minute gaps between trains, which happens, but it's 10 minutes tops anyway.
For air travel, the stops (airports) are the congested nodes but the way between them (air) has much more possibility.
Trains are limited onto tracks and cannot merge out of the way, so point to point more quickly exhausts route capacity. Stations are less of a constraint.
Trains also lower the cost of transferring; airplane transferring is at best a hassle and at worst an ordeal. Meanwhile, trains can literally stop across the same platform across from each other so you walk a few meters at most. Japan does this a lot, where trains are timed to facilitate such quick connections.
At personal levels, you either type in (time, origin, goal) into a map or a route finder app and get on trains in sequence as the app says, or do a rudimentary graph search in your head[2] and hope you don't hit 10 minute gaps between trains, which happens, but it's 10 minutes tops anyway.
1: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/corp-trains-il...
2: This shows hub and spoke model works for trains, but why not for air travel?