Point Of Monorail Policy?

Is there a reason for the monorail policy? It doesn’t seem to really serve a point in the game so I would guess that it was a political issue in the UK at some stage?

I would suggest it’s removal from the game because I don’t think it really serves a point.

1 Like

Yeah I think it should be renamed to Bullet train as that seems to be the only viable form of long-range train transport (too early to tell with Elon Musk’s weird levitating trains).

It just makes me think of the Simpsons episode.

In reality you’d probably be looking at what’s called “High-Speed Rail”.


Yes, its legacy really, and its from Democracy 3, maybe even 2, and to be honest YES, it is inspired by an episode of the simpsons.

But I agree, we should re-design this so it is high-speed rail, maybe with a high-end option for hyperloop style mega-fast tunnels.


If you go all hyperloop it should be able to, after a long time of extreme funding, actually reduce air travel appreciably, 'cause speeds would be almost comparable but, being closer to the ground, distances would be shorter, and also, it may plausibly use only electricity which is extremely hard to do with aircraft because of the weight of batteries.

1 Like

morseo in countries on continental landmasses or on large Islands like Australia

1 Like

Maybe political capital expensive to create, but not to modify- in countries without high-speed rail (like Australia) movements/lobbying efforrs to create such a network have had an absolute bastard of a time getting anywhere politically. A bit like satellite road pricing (though admittedly that’s basically unheard of)

Also it should get at least somewhat cheaper over time: A LOT of the actual monetary cost is gonna be in constructing lines. Once those are there, maintenance surely is significant too, but not compared to construction cost.

Wow these are very good points… i will add in a slight dip in air travel at the upper end.

Good to hear that it will be replaced/reworked it has always seen a little out of place (although I suspect in a few years when Trump is gone so will the border wall (assuming it doesn’t permanently become a central part of republican policy)

Come to think of it, that policy is extremely expensive and, once you eradicated cars, literally pointless.
IMO, if there’s hardly any cars, it ought to be cheaper (maybe, like, fewer satellites to cover all cars?), and it should be cheaper again for each space program you have (regular, Mars, and private)
In fact, anything to do with satellites (so also telecoms, spy satellite network, and potentially climate adaption fund) should be made cheaper by each space program.
From what I understand, SpaceX has already made space missions quite a bit cheaper, and if the insane BFR actually takes off, it’ll conceivably become so cheap as to allow near-affordable space tourism and space shuttles to the other side of the Earth (like, launching and landing a rocket becomes competitive against planes if the journeys are far enough). And repair/upgrade missions will also be much more doable.
One of the biggest expenses related to space travel today is, that the bulk of what you build will actually literally be wasted. (Burned up in the atmosphere or at least wrecked beyond repair)
Reusable parts are a game changer!

Border walls might become a thing in other countries too. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear politicians in some european countries start talking about it.

Would it be possible for the border wall policy to cost x amount for x amount of years until it is built, and then change to how strictly one wants to man the wall? From guard posts every 100 miles to a moat filled with crocodiles and a guard every 10ft.

They already have. Some of the Balkan countries IIRC.

Ha. actually we don’t have a way currently to differentiate between one-off infrastructure costs and ongoing costs. Everything is presumed to be financed on an on-going costs basis in terms of maintenance etc, although the implementation delay implies startup periods where a policy still costs X but only provides a fraction of its effects…

Couldn’t you model that simply by having a [policy self-cost] modifier which starts out maxed and then slowly trends down? It could be visible (and called “construction cost”) or hidden. Seems to me your system already provides everything that it needs to make it possible. At 0%, after how ever many terms, it’d be just maintenance costs. I’m not sure - I didn’t read up on it at all - but I’d imagine maintenance cost of something like this isn’t actually that exorbitant compared to regular rail which, ok to be fair that costs more at full funding than the monorail does.

Really I’m also not sure why the monorail has to be a state funded thing in the first place. Sure, the hyperloop stuff right now is not unlikely to not actually go anywhere, but efforts to its effect are entirely private. Currently the game makes it sound like effectively you’re building an entirely new state enterprise. In which case the same rules of potential profitability should apply.

Yup good point, the monorail should have a run-at-a-profit option too, although I guess its arguable if its even possible for something like high speed rail/hyperloop etc to ever actually really run at a profit while still being affordable enough to attract passengers.

Could the high speed rail policy give a boost to “the railway” in such a way as it will increase the profit you make from the nationalised rail policy (if active)?

I’m assuming they are totally seperate things. Like in the UK we have a lot of rail lines, but only really 1 high speed rail line (london to france). Trains cannot even go from one to other as far as I know. (I think HS1 is wider).

I mean sure, the rails are different, but they can be well connected via stations, and the whole scheduling and planning stuff would presumably be interdependent. A strong high speed rail network will also boost the usefulness of other transport options, until it becomes so good as to literally replace them.