I actually have "gotten over [my] solipsism".
I do so through faith. I believe that the world around me exists and that it is at least somewhat reflected in my senses.
If you have proof I'd love to know what it is.

If we're dreaming science is much less useful.
I've had many dreams where there is little consistency of natural law. I can fly one moment and then I start falling the next. Any model of the universe I can come up with can be invalid the next second. And when I wake up they all go out the window.
And that's only if I know I'm dreaming. If I don't even know that then I have no reason to believe that my models will have any meaning at all.

1) You don't know that. You could wake up and realize that you've been dreaming.
2) You don't know that either. You may believe that there is some consistent pattern to your senses but you can't prove it so it's a matter of faith.

This very question was addressed by Plato and later St. Augustine. More recently it has been addressed in "the Matrix", albeit a little less rigorously. If your attitude is that you don't care about any certainty of knowledge or understanding of fundamental reality that's fine. But you aren't engaging in science .

But you've just described an underlying reality. If there is any pattern to our observations then that pattern is the underlying reality.

I believe that this describes the world that we actually exist in.
But that should not, in general, be a problem for science as long as there is some consistency to the relationship between our senses and the underlying reality.

If you create a collection of models and make no assertions as to it's reflection of some underlying reality I wouldn't really call it science.

Science can reasonably be considered a Faith because at its very core it relies on an untestable hypothesis.
Hypothesis: My senses reflect some underlying reality.
I happen to believe that this is true but I can't prove it. Rene DesCartes tried to address this question in his "Meditations on First Philosophy" but does not, in my opinion, settle it in a satisfactory manner.
If my senses actually reflect some underlying reality then the scientific method will help me learn something about that reality.
However if my senses do not reflect an underlying reality then the scientific method is useless.

Jesus and Satan are arguing about who is the better programmer so they decide to have a competition. For the sake of argument let's say they're supposed to write a log(log(n)) sorting program.
They both type furiously for a few minutes and then Jesus leans back and smiles. Satan continues typing when suddenly the power goes out.
Both computers shut down and Satan starts cursing like a sailor.
When he notices that Jesus seems undisturbed he asks, "What the hell are you smiling about?"
He replies, "Jesus saves."

Rope cargo systems are great for mountains. That's why they're used extensively in the Austrian Alps for both people and supplies. They're probably used elsewhere too.
The problem with trains is that the mountainousness terrain is not good for them. Between the valley and the peak there are often several smaller peaks. A rope cargo system can basically go from one mini-peak to the next. A train would have to weave up and down and it would be much more expensive to install. Trains also don't do well on slopes you can install cog railways but they're even more expensive and they don't go nearly as fast.