Trains vs. Metro

[Chyll]

So, something has been bugging me and I could not quite put my finger on it until I was logging off from playing a bit recently. Trains and metro seem to be unlocked and costed backwards.

1. Metro unlocks first. What am I missing that this seems counter intuitive? Trains seem like they would be available far sooner for many communities and certainly for small communities dotted across much of the countrysides I have visited.
2. Train stations cost much more than metro stations. Wouldn't the cost to dig the metro down under the ground add to the cost of what was essentially already a train station?

Maybe it is a lack of distinction for trains between 'light' rail and passenger overland rail. But that still does not address the first point.

If I were dreaming up a change:

• Trains would unlock first
• Train stations would come in three styles cargo, passenger (outside connection), and light rail (in city transit, slightly smaller footprint)
• Metro stations would cost... oh, double... a light rail station
• light rail would still need to be roadside, but would be awesome if they could be placed elevated for in city raised rail lines

Am I missing a design or game play consideration?

 

[MrLabx]

I think you are 100% right. Digging metro tunnels cost so much in real life but in game you can just dig anywhere without much cost. That should be buffed. And I like your light train idea. A train that occupies one lane of the road sound good. They wouldn't cost much and there are a lot of cities using this system.

 

[Imgran]

I agree. Rails already take way waaaaaaay more space. Metro being so unrealistically easy and the rail system being so bugged just makes the cost benefit analysis really broken.

 

[sermaciej]

Metro is too OP - no noise, cheap, many passengers, take almost none space on ground

 

[AmpsterMan]

The only advantage Train has over Metro is 240 capacity v 180 capacity. However, the costs of passenger rail are prohibitive as well their gigantic footprint. Furthermore, trains share the same network as freight. This means you either have segregate your networks (costing money and space) put them in the same network, reducing the effective efficiency of both.

As it stands, the only purpose for trains is to bring in tourists, and they don't bring in much tax atm so there are much better cost effective transportation there.

 

[El Jojo]

Ideally you should have different levels of station, some inner city train stations are not that big, the bigger you want it the higher the price, capacity and noise. Although train is much noisier than metro.
Then just requires a train depot to be built, before you can build the light stations (and a metro depot should also be required)

 

[Kagemusha]

While I am glad that Metro comes before trains and is so cheap (at least the Metro Tracks), I have to agree that it normally should be the other way round, or that before the Metro you should be able to build overground tram line (as these would be the natural predecessors to metro lines)

 

[Male]

even airports and harbors should come before metro. Trainstations should really be available from the start.

In sc4 i usually build city around stations, but this game prohibits it, but hey, i can build an advanced metro underground system in a small town of 20.000 people and almost make a profit with the tickets. Makes total sense!

 

[IVIaarten]

The biggest thing trains have over metro lines is that you can see them They look awesome.

I do agree with the OP though. I haven't built any metro in my city yet (about 80k pop), and don't think I will for a while.
I have a couple of internal and external rail lines though.

 

[Yorkie-GBR]

I think on the whole you are right.

However this is not a "Tech" upgrade, so in a city setup which is the name of the game, having underground first is more logical than having overground, at least imo.

If the game had a "Tech" upgrade system, then overground [In this case, trains] would be the logical setup.

 

[Imgran]

It actually takes more skill, money and expertise to get underground rail tunnels than above ground tunnels so I just disagree with you.

 

[Kharisian]

What I would prefer is a segregation of most inter-city passenger trains from the rest. Being able to build a small train network within your city on a separate set of lines that cargo doesn't go through would have been excellent for me early game; building trains across rivers is a lot easier than trying to account for slope building underground.

Even moreso, it would allow for more of the LRT-type transit you would expect in a smaller city-style setting, and typically these smaller trains can handle tighter turns and fit into smaller spaces (or even hybrid with roads) than their larger train cousins. Part of me believes you should be able to build trainyards in a small city (in part because I live in rural Canada, a lot of trainyards exist in smaller areas to meet the needs to transport stuff everywhere) but most of my problem with the current system would be solved with more LRT potential.

Or at least the ability to designate lines a little more directly for inter-city and extra-city use.

 

[Chyll]

Okay. I am completely satisfied that I am not incorrect in my line of thinking. And now I will return to fiddling with my town. Thanks, all.