SUPERNATURAL TRAVEL

It is said that we live in the age of the train, and, judging by the number of trains on the rails these days, such a claim cannot be far wrong, even though most people would probably give priority to the plane. At any rate, the twentieth century is the age of the train that runs on two rails, whether across the surface of the land or deep underground, and we may believe this fact is inherent in the relative nature of an atomic society, which likes to do things in pairs. The monorail, it would seem, is something for the future, since suggestive of an absolute trend more applicable, it may well be, to a Social Transcendentalist age than to a liberal or democratic one.

I like the idea of the monorail train quite a lot, and I am confident that it will function both above ground, on an elevated line, and beneath ground, like the contemporary underground. Though not every country will desire the latter, for reasons I shall shortly outline. It is well known, for instance, that London has an underground system and a very complex one too, while Dublin doesn't. But it may not be appreciated, least of all in Britain, that the absence of an underground system from Dublin is not simply an indication of Dublin's backwardness, as may at first appear to be the case, but, more probably, indicative of a refusal, on the part of the Irish, to go underground and thus follow in the well-worn footsteps of decadent Britain.

For what is an underground system? Not simply a mode of mechanized transport, but, like all other artificial phenomena, a mode of transport corresponding to a specific ideological equivalent, in this case ... a Marxist one. Yes, the fact is that the underground system signifies a plunge into a democratic or, rather, anti-democratic absolutism, much as submarines signify a like-plunge compared with a surface vessel, such as a destroyer or a cruiser. We may argue that, to a degree, the one precedes the other, the relative the absolute, and that, just as surface ships pre-date submarines, so trains pre-date underground trains, as a land/air relativity preceding a tunnel absolutism and, moreover, as a relativity between trains running in opposite directions on adjacent, parallel tracks ... preceding an absolutism of independent underground trains running along the single tracks of a given tunnel, isolated from those heading in the opposite direction, which likewise have a tunnel to themselves.

In the underground, then, we perceive a 'fall' (forwards) from the relative to the absolute, as from above-ground liberalism to beneath-ground radicalism, equivalent to a communist status. Now when this fact is properly appreciated, it won't surprise us to find that the Irish, with their theocratic bias, do not possess an underground system and probably wouldn't want to build one even if they could afford to, bearing in mind the ideological implications of such a system - implications that may have been grasped intuitively rather than rationally by the modernity-wary Irish! A fact that would apply no less to the building and staffing of submarines, which are likewise Marxist and also scorned by the Irish, who prefer gunboats and corvettes, corresponding to a petty-bourgeois liberal integrity.

We may therefore presume that, unless Eire is overtaken by a Marxist revolution, it will continue to scorn submarines and underground trains, as well as anything else that corresponds to a democratic decadence. Even the nuclear submarine, arguably more relative to Marxism-Leninism, would be unacceptable. And, by a similar token, we may contend that a monorail underground system would be less than relevant, even if inherently preferable to its Marxist forerunner. At any rate, whilst Eire will continue to fight shy of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism alike, it is probable that, if London is to modify or expand its underground service in the decades ahead, Britain will introduce monorail transportation as the logical successor to the current and traditional bi-rail underground trains. Since it already possesses nuclear submarines, there would seem to be no ideological argument in the way of modifying the underground system accordingly. Though we may surmise that such a process would take time and be introduced only very gradually, affecting first one line and then another, much as the new bi-rail trains were introduced by degrees, with particular reference to the new lines, such as the Victoria and the Jubilee, whilst an older type of carriage continued to function on the old lines.

These days, however, I dislike the underground on principle and make a point of avoiding it. I have been on surface trains once or twice in recent years, but would not wish to cultivate a habit with them either, partly, I suspect, because of the expense, yet partly also for ideological reasons. If I were asked to stipulate an ideal mode of rail travel, I would have no hesitation in replying: overhead monorail travel, as equivalent to a Social Transcendentalist ideological integrity, and therefore applicable not to an anti-natural bias, nor even an anti-supernatural one, but to a supernatural bias, such as I trust Ireland will develop to a greater extent in the near future.

Yes, for if surface rail corresponds to a liberal, or democratic, ideological position, then air rail, as we may call it, would certainly conform to a radically theocratic integrity, as appropriate to a people who fight shy of democratic and, in particular, Marxist criteria, being heir to a Catholic tradition. Such a transcendental absolutism would be the logical successor to the current diesel/electric trains, and would doubtless permit of greater speeds, each rail running separate from rather than parallel to another, as in the underground system, with any given train travelling backwards and forwards along its particular rail. Probably, on second thoughts, the ideal way of designing monorails would be to have one above the other, so that a vertical as opposed to a horizontal arrangement was established, in accordance with transcendental criteria. Thus neither train on any specific route would ever see the other, since each of them would be on different levels of track, and stations would have to be designed accordingly ... with platforms one above the other, though not necessarily on opposite sides of their respective rails but, to save space and enable stations to be built along the most vertical lines, one directly above the other, with the trains' doors opening on opposite sides, depending on the direction of the train in question, but only on one side in each case.

Who knows, such suggestions may yet bear fruit, once qualified people get down to working out the details of a viable two-way monorail system of overhead transport, the lower rail itself some yards above the ground, the higher one several yards above that, with no possibility of either train colliding. Certainly safer than the parallel type of tracks, which more accords with a democratic society, where a horizontal compromise is never far away and collisions are always possible. As are derailments, a misfortune I can't conceive of happening to a monorail train, sunk deeply onto and around the rail, almost hugging it from either side, as if afraid to part company. Yet, for all that, more flexible than the conventional twin-track train, which is obliged to slow down to accommodate bends in the track and would almost certainly become derailed if it leant over too far on either side. There is something ponderous and materialistic about such a train, whereas the monorail alternative would suggest a wavicle lightness and swiftness applicable to the supernatural. Thus it would form the transcendental complement on land to hovercraft at sea, which skim across the water's surface in a like-supernatural capacity, greatly preferable to surface ships, with their liberal equation. As yet, however, monorail and hovercraft are, alike, something of a rarity, even in the most advanced industrial/technological nations. A full appreciation of their significance has still to come, as it surely must during the twenty-first century!

Thus speaks Peter Sloane, transportational spokesperson for the Social Transcendentalist revolution.