I don't think that what this guy did is technically "graffiti". He knows that his work wont be wasted since he asked permission. Reminds me of this paint job:
http://www.tomcosicart.com.au/tom-cosic ... omotiveart.
Personally, I feel that most graffiti lacks class. Maybe it's down to personal taste though.
In terms of RT3, whether I like the style or not, graffiti exists in real life, so it is realistic (I didn't vote). The way I play the game, I often see multiples of a car type on the same train. After some tests, we will have more info, but planning to have a clean copy available as an option will work for me.
I have explained before that my style is loose, work with the game's natural resource flow and try to expediate it. If resource distribution isn't scattered I will try to concentrate production in one area. The reasoning is that I will get better price differentials more frequently as two or three loads of cargo get dropped in one town, depress the price there in preparation for the next "re-haul" shipment.
This re-haul process is a cycle, it occurs naturally. By concentrating production, I just expediate it. The cycle is shorter, meaning more hauls, and the price differential is greater (more profit) thanks to quicker overwhelming of demand.
When doing this, it's true that concentrated production will mean lower profits for the producing industries. However, the industry must pay overhead and labor costs, akin to train running costs. I haven't done the math with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that by using efficient engines, the cost for trains can turn out lower than the industry will pay for overhead and labor. This is not a short term strategy, building industries on top of stacks of $0 resources is very likely to outperform in the short term.
Note: main requirment for this "strategy": a large demand area (a collection of decent-sized cities spaced normally, away from the edges of the map) preferably on flattish plain. In abnormal conditions, start with the basics and adapt.