Off the top of my head:

From their rolling (gliding?) stock concepts it looks like they're targeting the automated metro system market, think London DLR or Vancouver Skytrain. With these system top speed isn't really the issue as you'll be constrained by acceleration and stop spacing. Better gains can be had in this space by building better signalling systems, allowing the trains to run at higher frequencies.

All of their marketing materials show the trains going in perfect straight lines. A lot of other monorail systems are constrained by this, because building switches for monorails is hard. Throw maglev into the mix and I can't imagine the problem gets any easier.

They focus a bit on ease of construction with the elevated rail segments being made of pre-cast concrete sections. I'm faily certain any modern elevated train guideway is also made of pre-made sections on a production line. They're trying to sell normal as some kind of innovation.

All the usual gadgetbahn things seem to apply as well. TSB goes bust? Good luck getting new rolling stock. Want to integrate this service with existing stations and track? Nope, it's all bespoke. Want to get rolling stock from a different supplier that can meet your local needs better? Good luck with that one. Nobody else buys this system, so it remains expensive forever? Sucks to be you.

That would apply for most uses of software, wouldn't it?

> This results in refusals ranging from "This is internal for now but we will open it up later" (a fair concern) to "Somebody is worried that exposing it over the VPN to contractors would count as making it public" (IDK, I'm not a lawyer.)

I've encountered variations of this problem at places I have worked in. Education goes a long way to solving this, and this example of simple usage of (A)GPL software is easy enough to explain with examples.