Headline

7 Countries With No Railway Lines And Why

Published

11 months ago

October 15, 2024

Editor

Railways are often seen as symbols of progress as they connect places, people, and economies but even at that, a handful of countries don’t have any rail system at all.

To some countries, the challenge boils down to geography while to others, it is financial.

Here’s a look at seven countries that manage just fine without railways, opting instead for other alternatives.

Bhutan

Bhutan is hidden in the Himalayas and because of this county’s majestic mountains, it make building railways tricky and an expensive venture. Its landscape is dominated by steep valleys and high-altitude passes, leaving limited flat land for tracks.
Instead, Bhutan has a solid road network that allows for reliable road travel.

Cyprus

Cyprus once had a railway system operating from 1905 to 1951. However, economic issues led to its closure, and a second attempt at revival was also abandoned in the 1970s.

Adding to the challenge is Cyprus’s political divide, which complicates cross-country infrastructure projects. For now, buses and an extensive road network connect people and places across this Mediterranean island.

Iceland

Iceland has tried three different times to set up railway networks, but none have become a full public transit system. Many factors played a role, like the country’s small population, the popularity of cars, and the tough landscape and climate, which made it challenging to maintain a railway.

The idea of railways in Iceland dates back to the early 1900s, though these early plans eventually lost momentum. New discussions came up in the 2000s about a rail link around Reykjavik and nearby areas. However, that project faced similar obstacles and hasn’t moved forward yet.

Andorra

This small, landlocked country in the Pyrenees mountains has no railways as it relies mainly on road transport. The nearest rail station is in France, and regular bus services connect travellers from there to Andorra’s capital, Andorra la Vella. Given its small population and limited size, Andorra manages well without its own railway infrastructure.

Monaco

One of the world’s smallest countries, Monaco is densely urbanised and doesn’t need railways within its borders. Its location along the French Riviera allows for easy access to French trains, and the principality itself uses an efficient system of buses and taxis.

At just 2.1 square kilometers, Monaco can be easily navigated without rail transport.

Yemen

Yemen’s lack of a railway system is due to its long-standing political instability and economic difficulties. The country’s desert terrain and ongoing conflict make infrastructure projects nearly impossible.

Instead, Yemen uses a road network for most of its transportation, but even this is affected by the country’s economic struggles.

Malta

Malta’s small size and densely packed streets make rail systems impractical. Although it had a short-lived railway in the early 20th century, it closed down in 1931. Malta’s public transport system now relies on buses, which are well-suited to the island’s limited geography and urban layout.

Each of these countries has found ways to meet transportation needs without railways. Whether it’s air, road, or sea transport, these alternative modes show that connectivity and mobility can adapt to any terrain or challenge.

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

4 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.