Bus vs. train
Seems the mode of travel to the Neutral Zone for the public at large is via bus. Why no trains? Is this a due to the expense related to renting and operating period trains to film?
shareFrom a filming perspective, it is possible that they wanted to save money, so using a bus was easier (but, on the other hand, we do see a train station in New York in the fourth episode of the second season). Some "in-universe" reasons could be: (1) train travel is simply more expensive; (2) train travel is more restricted/scrutinized by the authorities and thus more dangerous for somebody who wants to avoid attention; and (3) the Axis powers (who don't trust each other) may have destroyed rail access across the Neutral Zone as a security measure.
shareI don't know the real answer, but here's a shot at a potential answer:
Train travel requires a stable, cooperative society across a broad swath of territory. A bus can go where a train cannot go.
There was reasonable bus travel in the US even before the super highway system. See: "It Happened One Night."
http://www.amazon.com/Save-Send-Delete-Danusha-Goska/dp/1846949866
I think that's it. Who would maintain the tracks or build new ones there? Who would own the trains? Whatever passes for a government probably has to work very hard to manage a decent system of roads.
shareAgreed.
Its clear that the 'Neutral Zone' has no clear governmental control of any kind and this lack of stability is one that limits the viability of major infrastructure projects like working railroads.
True, but there were already railroads in that region before the war. Pretty good ones. I suppose they just let them go to seed, or maybe blew them up?
shareWell a railroad also need a railroad organisation and the infrastructure support and the suggestion is that there is nothing of this complexity, yet, in the zone.
share