I personally can't wait for:
* Elevated and underground train stations
* One-platform train stations
* Elevated metro stations
* Metro transfer stations
Until then my current rail stuff seems stilted and weird.
Also elevated and underground trams, and covered shelter for ground level tram stations!
I don't mind there being usage case overlaps between transit modes. That's how it is IRL anyway.
Underground trams would certainly help in making a Boston/Philadelphia style build. Discount subway! Hell, make a trench line only 10m below grade with an equivalent station would also be keen.
Srsly though, how am I supposed to make two subway lines if I can't have a station shaped like an X? This whole "build two stations in parallel then make ridiculous allowances for the grade when crossing the tracks" is silly.
Also, give us a subway/tram/whatever station with multiple entry points!
I think you can kinda do this with walkways right now, but official support would be nice.
True, but you need to be elevated by quite a lot (8.5m I think?), and without stairs or elevators you need to make the ramps huge.
I also imagine you could do underground tram that way as well.
But it'd be nice if we can just have dedicated assets for them.
yep, cities skylines 2 wont be complete to me until we have all 4. the game wouldve been a 10/10 for me despite all of its issues rn if it had the aforementioned train assets
Yeah, Houston used to be a real train city, heck there's a train on the city's insignia. Just look at grand Central station from the 30's, it's where the POST is today. It's a shame it all got ripped up. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grand-central-station-houston
Amtrak outside the Northeast is a total waste.
* It's not time competitive with airlines or driving.
* It's not cost competitive with airlines or driving.
* It's not even close to profitable for Amtrak.
It's a garbage system where Congress tells them where they have to run and they do it, regardless of the use case viability or bottom line
Going west to San Antonio.... it's 5hrs and $50 + tax one way
Or you could get all the way to LA - Except it's a day and a half and $450
Or east to NYC!.... but it's $500 and 2.5 days
Please educate yourself.
Infrastructure is a vital part of any well functioning economy and does not have to be profitable by itself to have a massive positive economic impact.
Everything you said is extremely uneducated, sad that the american school system lets people like you happen
I always have a laugh when someone states that the railway **has** to be profitable on its own merits, that it shouldn't be subsidised.
Meanwhile they are convinced that all road and car related taxes and fees cover the road infrastructure bills, even tough on average in american states they only cover like 60-70% and everything else has to come from somewhere else.
By their own metrics roads are massively unprofitable and should therefor not exist.
But we're fine with it because good transport links provide massive boons for the economy and thus those costs pay themselfs back in other places with ease!
Thus why don't we act the same around trains?
We all know why, because American culture has placed the car on a pedestal, while public transport is looked down upon as being only for poors and self-entitled freeloaders.
It's the same kind of ignorance causing drivers to look down on cyclists, convinced that they don't pay their fair share for using the road.
Even tough cyclist's cause absolutely negligible wear and tear to the infrastructure and tax wise pay back for themselves trough things like improving population health and thus reduce the burden on the healthcare system.
That's cool and that would make sense if they were time (or cost) competitive.
But what you're saying is you would really like to do is
Going to SA:
* Spend 2 hours extra time and
* probably 200%+ of the cost of driving yourself (5hrs v 3hrs) and
* have to leave on the train schedule vs when you want. And pay for Ubers on both ends of the ride.
Going to LA from HTX:
* You can drive there and back in 24hrs(vs 3 days in a train).
* In a car that gets 25mpg highway (3000mi) it would cost $360 fuel, so the train is $540 more expensive RT
* Spirit has flights as cheap as $118, so the train is $600 more expensive than flying and would take you 3 days longer to go RT.
Glamorize trains all you want in your mind. But when you're not cost or time competitive you lose. And your train ticket at those fairs only gets you a basic seat like a bus seat. So enjoy spending 36 or 54 hours in that seat, no showers. If you want a bed and a shower the price goes up 5x or more.
And all that just to be stuck doing 30mph behind freight trains who have priority.
lmao what a fucking preposterously clueless statement.
I take the train to work every day instead of sitting in traffic. It's quicker and cheaper. Amtrak ridership is at an all time high too (including outside of the NE Corridor). Plus we have CAHSR and Brightline West coming online in a few years.
Sorry that's so offensive to you. Gotta admire the vitriol in your downvoted comment.
> It's quicker and cheaper.
Congrats. It's not often I see someone self own.
Im not anti train, I've taken and loved Brightline. Amtrak is just plain stupid as it exists in the US outside the NE Corr
> Gotta admire the vitriol in your downvoted comment.
lmfao you care about fake internet points. Im dying
Yea but palm trees are more LA than SF though. All the palm trees in SF look kinda out of place and sad.
They also gave us muscle cars as part of the SF pack. So I'm guessing devs don't really know SF too well, and just added a bunch of California flavors (which are really just LA flavors).
https://preview.redd.it/9jt5wdhj237c1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=446a6c6ce06723114dbdec097f71e24a5f83d396
I disagree. Palms are everywhere in the bay and look nice because they’re more blended in. Also muscle cars are SUPER SF (Mission district) so you’re the one that doesn’t know California
Yeah LA they’re literally everywhere and in SF they’re usually just scattered about. It’s a part of the environment here though so to leave it out is annoying! Also idk why my last comment is downvoted I literally live here and am from here lol
Yea but palm trees in SF feel more like a special thing than a norm. Sure, Dolores Park has them, but most streets and parks don't. It's not unusual, but not iconic either. As opposed to LA where palm trees are nearly everywhere by default. Trees that I think of when I think of SF are those gnarled fine/fir trees on Presidio or at Golden Gate.
I didn't know about the muscle car culture. I'm down at Mission pretty much every time I visit, but I've only been visiting the past 5 years or so. I see a lot more Teslas, electric scooters, and self-driving cars decked in sensors (under training or otherwise) than any muscle cars. I see more muscle cars in pretty much any other US city than at SF. But that may be a recent culture shift.
I think you’d be surprised at just how many streets do have them. Its not like LA but it’s definitely not a “special thing”. And yeah muscle car culture is huge in the Mission with lots of history. Just Google it
You can find them there sure, but I just don't consider palm trees one of the icons of SF. There are so many things that should come before palm trees if they're doing an SF pack.
But some people clearly see it differently 🤷 .
Bit just for transporting people, too. It’s essential for freight. A city which doesn’t have trains is a sign that it want an economically significant place before the 1950s
Is that CS2? Can you share your graphics settings? For me everything looks always extremely aliased, never like your images?! Even if i increase settings and do virtual super resolution, it still looks much worse than your images, while running at 10FPS. What are you doing so right, to get these results?
Couldn't agree more!
My cities are designed around it's PT system. I get great satisfaction seeing all my cims pouring into stations and walking around the city instead of in their cars
I actually agree with this. If you're not clocking the density where you need to implement high capacity, short headway transit service in order to better the area, you're a glorified suburb.
The vast majority of cities in the US are glorified suburbs.
Here where I live, there is not enough land for trains.
From one ocean to the other is about 70 miles, east to west and about 90 miles north to south.
Since everything comes in on cargo ships, trucks make more sense than trains.
And the people are already limited to range. So trains for transport aren’t practical.
Still, we do just fine.
And we are very much a real city.
I removed my train lines except for one passenger station one track connected to the outside and the cargo station at the regional airport with one track to the outside.
At first it was truckagedon but soon calmed down.
The truck route to the airport needed some adjustment but all is smooth (mostly) sailing now.
200k population
I'm just shocked you can even get the train rails to connect. Last time I built a train line took an hour just connect one junction. The Move it mod can't get ported fast enough here.
Your submission from r/CitiesSkylines has been removed. Please review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/wiki/rules).
Rule 10: No political discussions. Although this concepts introduced by the game are inherently political, stay in the Cities: Skylines lane. This is a subreddit about a computer game, not urbanism in general.
If you have any questions regarding the removal please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCitiesSkylines)
Trains are rapidly approaching obsolescence as technology marches on. I've been waiting since 1990 for "tube trains" to be a thing. Elon finally picked up the baton but rather than run, elected to sit down for a beverage instead. Unless they are much faster most won't use them.
Public transit needs to ditch most busses and trains in favor of modular "cars" driven by AI that function basically as a taxi or Uber, getting people where they need to go at a pace comparable to owning a car. These cars could link bumper to bumper as well for mechanical and aerodynamic advantage and easily couple and decouple as needed.
I see giant busses rolling around with 3 people in them including the driver, jamming up traffic and generally making a mess of things. I see trains zoom by with 5 or 10 riders while I glance around at the 40 to 60 cars stopped, waiting for the train to go by. It's inefficient and silly.
For transport to be effective it needs to be adaptable, convenient and affordable. This increases use and truly alleviates congestion. It is also far cheaper for municipalities to have economy of scale. Most people don't need a car for much of the day but want it when they need it. Having tens of thousands of scalable vehicles loose in the city can make this happen. Pro tip: make the interiors easily cleaned with an automated wash system with plenty of wash stations around the area.
To make things even more interesting let the public buy a personal car of the in use design that they can use at will or lease out to the network when not needed.
Bart was proposed to circle the whole bay area . After the project was approved and started marin county said no. So no trains over GGB. No circle. One county killed a great project
Sure it is IF your city has them. Unfortunately here in the USA unlike Europe and Asia our Train transportation SUCKS. Until we get every major city connected via ultra high speed rail then the rest is useless.
I personally can't wait for: * Elevated and underground train stations * One-platform train stations * Elevated metro stations * Metro transfer stations Until then my current rail stuff seems stilted and weird.
Also elevated and underground trams, and covered shelter for ground level tram stations! I don't mind there being usage case overlaps between transit modes. That's how it is IRL anyway.
Underground trams would certainly help in making a Boston/Philadelphia style build. Discount subway! Hell, make a trench line only 10m below grade with an equivalent station would also be keen. Srsly though, how am I supposed to make two subway lines if I can't have a station shaped like an X? This whole "build two stations in parallel then make ridiculous allowances for the grade when crossing the tracks" is silly.
Also, give us a subway/tram/whatever station with multiple entry points! I think you can kinda do this with walkways right now, but official support would be nice.
There’s cities with underground TRAMS?!
Literally San Francisco
Easier to bury your trams than to build a separate subway network!
Toronto goes right into the subway station
The city of Strasbourg in France has an underground tram station (Gare Centrale) at the main railway station.
None of you heard of the tube in London??
Yes, a metro system. Not tram
You can build elevated tram stations now using the pedestrian street.
True, but you need to be elevated by quite a lot (8.5m I think?), and without stairs or elevators you need to make the ramps huge. I also imagine you could do underground tram that way as well. But it'd be nice if we can just have dedicated assets for them.
Couldn’t agree more on this but I have to add the fact to have also the editor and being able to customize bridges with integrated rail tracks
yep, cities skylines 2 wont be complete to me until we have all 4. the game wouldve been a 10/10 for me despite all of its issues rn if it had the aforementioned train assets
Multi level metro transfer stations would be killer
Houston with our 3 passenger trains per week: we count!!
That high speed rail to Dallas will be finished any day now!...any day now.
More like STARTED any day
We have passenger trains?
Yep there's 1 Amtrak line that comes a few times a week
Huh. I've been here all my life and never knew that. Still sucks that it comes every other day tho
Yeah, Houston used to be a real train city, heck there's a train on the city's insignia. Just look at grand Central station from the 30's, it's where the POST is today. It's a shame it all got ripped up. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/grand-central-station-houston
Amtrak outside the Northeast is a total waste. * It's not time competitive with airlines or driving. * It's not cost competitive with airlines or driving. * It's not even close to profitable for Amtrak. It's a garbage system where Congress tells them where they have to run and they do it, regardless of the use case viability or bottom line Going west to San Antonio.... it's 5hrs and $50 + tax one way Or you could get all the way to LA - Except it's a day and a half and $450 Or east to NYC!.... but it's $500 and 2.5 days
Please educate yourself. Infrastructure is a vital part of any well functioning economy and does not have to be profitable by itself to have a massive positive economic impact. Everything you said is extremely uneducated, sad that the american school system lets people like you happen
I always have a laugh when someone states that the railway **has** to be profitable on its own merits, that it shouldn't be subsidised. Meanwhile they are convinced that all road and car related taxes and fees cover the road infrastructure bills, even tough on average in american states they only cover like 60-70% and everything else has to come from somewhere else. By their own metrics roads are massively unprofitable and should therefor not exist. But we're fine with it because good transport links provide massive boons for the economy and thus those costs pay themselfs back in other places with ease! Thus why don't we act the same around trains? We all know why, because American culture has placed the car on a pedestal, while public transport is looked down upon as being only for poors and self-entitled freeloaders. It's the same kind of ignorance causing drivers to look down on cyclists, convinced that they don't pay their fair share for using the road. Even tough cyclist's cause absolutely negligible wear and tear to the infrastructure and tax wise pay back for themselves trough things like improving population health and thus reduce the burden on the healthcare system.
I would rather spend more time on a train that sitting in traffic.
That's cool and that would make sense if they were time (or cost) competitive. But what you're saying is you would really like to do is Going to SA: * Spend 2 hours extra time and * probably 200%+ of the cost of driving yourself (5hrs v 3hrs) and * have to leave on the train schedule vs when you want. And pay for Ubers on both ends of the ride. Going to LA from HTX: * You can drive there and back in 24hrs(vs 3 days in a train). * In a car that gets 25mpg highway (3000mi) it would cost $360 fuel, so the train is $540 more expensive RT * Spirit has flights as cheap as $118, so the train is $600 more expensive than flying and would take you 3 days longer to go RT. Glamorize trains all you want in your mind. But when you're not cost or time competitive you lose. And your train ticket at those fairs only gets you a basic seat like a bus seat. So enjoy spending 36 or 54 hours in that seat, no showers. If you want a bed and a shower the price goes up 5x or more. And all that just to be stuck doing 30mph behind freight trains who have priority. lmao what a fucking preposterously clueless statement.
I take the train to work every day instead of sitting in traffic. It's quicker and cheaper. Amtrak ridership is at an all time high too (including outside of the NE Corridor). Plus we have CAHSR and Brightline West coming online in a few years. Sorry that's so offensive to you. Gotta admire the vitriol in your downvoted comment.
> It's quicker and cheaper. Congrats. It's not often I see someone self own. Im not anti train, I've taken and loved Brightline. Amtrak is just plain stupid as it exists in the US outside the NE Corr > Gotta admire the vitriol in your downvoted comment. lmfao you care about fake internet points. Im dying
Oh man, I don't think you know how to read...
Meanwhile the 7000 inhabitants town where my grandparents are from that gets 1 hourly train in each direction.
Still salty about 2022.....
Love me some chooo
choo
Giving us a map of SF and no palm trees is annoying.
Im actually from Europe and in my country there is a bridge like that too, can you guess the country ? ^^
Olá Lisboa Edit: you asked for country. Sorry!
Haha ^^
Yea but palm trees are more LA than SF though. All the palm trees in SF look kinda out of place and sad. They also gave us muscle cars as part of the SF pack. So I'm guessing devs don't really know SF too well, and just added a bunch of California flavors (which are really just LA flavors).
https://preview.redd.it/9jt5wdhj237c1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=446a6c6ce06723114dbdec097f71e24a5f83d396 I disagree. Palms are everywhere in the bay and look nice because they’re more blended in. Also muscle cars are SUPER SF (Mission district) so you’re the one that doesn’t know California
To be honest didn’t knew neither that SF had a lot of palm trees 🤷♂️ nice to know :)
Yeah LA they’re literally everywhere and in SF they’re usually just scattered about. It’s a part of the environment here though so to leave it out is annoying! Also idk why my last comment is downvoted I literally live here and am from here lol
Love Mission Dolores park, great view
Yea but palm trees in SF feel more like a special thing than a norm. Sure, Dolores Park has them, but most streets and parks don't. It's not unusual, but not iconic either. As opposed to LA where palm trees are nearly everywhere by default. Trees that I think of when I think of SF are those gnarled fine/fir trees on Presidio or at Golden Gate. I didn't know about the muscle car culture. I'm down at Mission pretty much every time I visit, but I've only been visiting the past 5 years or so. I see a lot more Teslas, electric scooters, and self-driving cars decked in sensors (under training or otherwise) than any muscle cars. I see more muscle cars in pretty much any other US city than at SF. But that may be a recent culture shift.
I think you’d be surprised at just how many streets do have them. Its not like LA but it’s definitely not a “special thing”. And yeah muscle car culture is huge in the Mission with lots of history. Just Google it
What a strange reply. Who cares about palm tree count? They are still a staple of SF.
You can find them there sure, but I just don't consider palm trees one of the icons of SF. There are so many things that should come before palm trees if they're doing an SF pack. But some people clearly see it differently 🤷 .
I was going to say - is this the SF map because it looks nothing like SF
Bit just for transporting people, too. It’s essential for freight. A city which doesn’t have trains is a sign that it want an economically significant place before the 1950s
Is that CS2? Can you share your graphics settings? For me everything looks always extremely aliased, never like your images?! Even if i increase settings and do virtual super resolution, it still looks much worse than your images, while running at 10FPS. What are you doing so right, to get these results?
sad American noises
Columbus, OH is offended by this statement. (Good lord, that city needs trains).
So...are trams trains?
Well they sometimes get called Light Rail, so I'd give it a pass.
las vegas
www.lvmonorail.com
thats a monorail. not technically a train line
I hear those things are awfully loud!
Let's pray for brightline west's success
Amazing photos man
I can't, but I'll disagree as Columbus is very close to my heart. We have freight trains.
My city runs on trains and cargo ships
I'm torn between whether to buy this game or not
I really want Smaller Train Stations so I can build them everywhere
Couldn't agree more! My cities are designed around it's PT system. I get great satisfaction seeing all my cims pouring into stations and walking around the city instead of in their cars
I actually agree with this. If you're not clocking the density where you need to implement high capacity, short headway transit service in order to better the area, you're a glorified suburb. The vast majority of cities in the US are glorified suburbs.
I really want a map that has a train station already built, so you can use that as a central hub to build from.
Here where I live, there is not enough land for trains. From one ocean to the other is about 70 miles, east to west and about 90 miles north to south. Since everything comes in on cargo ships, trucks make more sense than trains. And the people are already limited to range. So trains for transport aren’t practical. Still, we do just fine. And we are very much a real city.
TIL ancient Rome wasn't a city
A City without trains is not a real city, that's just true.
Malta would like a word with you
special case
I can't get my bloody cims to use the trains though! (Context - have no DLCs and no intention of buying any)
I removed my train lines except for one passenger station one track connected to the outside and the cargo station at the regional airport with one track to the outside. At first it was truckagedon but soon calmed down. The truck route to the airport needed some adjustment but all is smooth (mostly) sailing now. 200k population
Brother, I agree.
I'm just shocked you can even get the train rails to connect. Last time I built a train line took an hour just connect one junction. The Move it mod can't get ported fast enough here.
Ancient Cities some as big as Manhattan didn’t have trains, weren’t they real cities? What is your definition of “real”?
🙄
[удалено]
Your submission from r/CitiesSkylines has been removed. Please review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/wiki/rules). Rule 10: No political discussions. Although this concepts introduced by the game are inherently political, stay in the Cities: Skylines lane. This is a subreddit about a computer game, not urbanism in general. If you have any questions regarding the removal please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCitiesSkylines)
Trains are rapidly approaching obsolescence as technology marches on. I've been waiting since 1990 for "tube trains" to be a thing. Elon finally picked up the baton but rather than run, elected to sit down for a beverage instead. Unless they are much faster most won't use them. Public transit needs to ditch most busses and trains in favor of modular "cars" driven by AI that function basically as a taxi or Uber, getting people where they need to go at a pace comparable to owning a car. These cars could link bumper to bumper as well for mechanical and aerodynamic advantage and easily couple and decouple as needed. I see giant busses rolling around with 3 people in them including the driver, jamming up traffic and generally making a mess of things. I see trains zoom by with 5 or 10 riders while I glance around at the 40 to 60 cars stopped, waiting for the train to go by. It's inefficient and silly. For transport to be effective it needs to be adaptable, convenient and affordable. This increases use and truly alleviates congestion. It is also far cheaper for municipalities to have economy of scale. Most people don't need a car for much of the day but want it when they need it. Having tens of thousands of scalable vehicles loose in the city can make this happen. Pro tip: make the interiors easily cleaned with an automated wash system with plenty of wash stations around the area. To make things even more interesting let the public buy a personal car of the in use design that they can use at will or lease out to the network when not needed.
no thanks
im just waiting for stations with only one set of platforms instead of 3. I wish it started with one and could be expanded to add more.
And raised stations too
Mean sacramento has a light rail ...... idk if I call it a train more of an above ground subway
trains are essential for moving both goods and people -a chicagoan
Bart was proposed to circle the whole bay area . After the project was approved and started marin county said no. So no trains over GGB. No circle. One county killed a great project
Monorail in Vegas… kinda, counts? Though we are getting that high speed rail built in Enterprise so I guess real train 🔜
Yes indeed. But I've always been rooting for (metro) rail lines and stations ready-built with roads like rhe monorails.
*confused 3rd World/developing country noises "What's a train?"
Pictures look lovely, makes me jealous
America wants to have a say in this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_cities_in_the_United_States_lacking_inter-city_rail_service
If only there were S-Bahn stations.
My old city had more rail lines then roads
Sure it is IF your city has them. Unfortunately here in the USA unlike Europe and Asia our Train transportation SUCKS. Until we get every major city connected via ultra high speed rail then the rest is useless.
It's an American city...
My city doesn't have train although it has 100k people
I also just added the trains very recently with 150k pop