Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
They do not cost more to run. Nor does it impact passenger numbers except due to the indirect knock on effects of increased pollution.
However, you're only assuming (guessing) it's OK not to replace trains cause that's "as far as you can tell".
There's people who have gone into this maintenance thing MUCH deeper than just "guessing" and can back up their findings with facts. (Search is wonderful. You should try it sometime!)
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1066780/discussions/0/1740009710701743742/
As it turns out, you're mostly right.
But if you don't mind old, rusty, greasy, stinky trains running around in your pristine environment or cities, then that's your choice.
(I couldn't stand it, personally.)
That's it.
There is no need to replace them at all, save that higher speed, higher capacity vehicles are generally more profitable (though there does come a point where there are routes that are too short for a given vehicle to actually benefit from, say, a higher top speed, so keeping old ones around on those routes is useful).
As for increasing maintenance, at it's highest level it reduces the vehicle's emissions back to the minimum that vehicle is capable of (and then keeps them there).