3 ms·

But isn't that down to Deutsche Bahn having lots problems with funding, industrial action etc?

anoncake 7y ago
The problems with it are: - It was split up. For example, the tracks and the rolling stock are owned by different companies. All these companies are owned by a holding and all use the DB brand, but they independently try to make a profit. That makes sense to economists trying to let the market organize as much as possible, but not to railway employees trying to run a railway. For example: before, the Bundesbahn built its infrastructure, balancing cost vs needs. Now, the infrastructure company optimizes for its own profit and cuts corners, no matter how much the companies operating the trains have to spend to compensate. - The government was planning to sell it on the stock market. In preparation, DB neglected its infrastructure to appear more profitable. Fortunately these plans were dropped, but the damage is done. Another insane decision that still contributes to this neglect: Maintenance is funded by the DB. Construction is funded by the Ministry of Transportation[1]. So the DB neglects infrastructure until it has to be replaced. - Probably the worst one: It competes with cars and trucks. The automobile industry is very powerful in Germany. Properly funding the DB would lower their profits so it doesn't happen. [1] and Digital Infrastructure. Yes, our ministry of transportation is responsible for the information highway. I am not making this up.
- makomk 7y ago
  Note that EU rules require Deutsche Bahn and every other European train network to be split up in this way, with all the problems it entails. Germany bent the rules quite a bit over the years to keep the operation of its railways as tightly integrated as it could, but it couldn't last. The European Commission is pretty unhappy about the fact they're even under the same holding company.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    You're right, the federal government is not to blame for that. Thanks for the reminder.
  - def_true_false 7y ago
    As a counterpoint, the Czech Republic has seen a massive improvement in both prices and quality with the forced split and competition with other train companies.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Correlation does not mean causation. It's also possible that splitting and competition improves one railway but would make another worse. Maybe a railway is just organized well enough that splitting is not an improvement. If the timetable gets designed by the director's nephew, something needs to change. But if multiple competing teams produce proposals and the best one gets chosen, you already have the benefits of competing companies without the disadvantages. Or there may be cultural differences between the railway companies. Maybe one company is staffed by hard workers who are motivated by working at a state-owned railway rather than for some capitalist that isn't them and would be offended if you introduced competition hoping to get them to work harder. The other could be staffed by lazy bums who find working for the state distasteful and do need a kick in the arse. Forcing a split could also cause other reforms that outweigh the damage the split causes.

The problems with it are: - It was split up. For example, the tracks and the rolling stock are owned by different companies. All these companies are owned by a holding and all use the DB brand, but they independently try to make a profit. That makes sense to economists trying to let the market organize as much as possible, but not to railway employees trying to run a railway. For example: before, the Bundesbahn built its infrastructure, balancing cost vs needs. Now, the infrastructure company optimizes for its own profit and cuts corners, no matter how much the companies operating the trains have to spend to compensate. - The government was planning to sell it on the stock market. In preparation, DB neglected its infrastructure to appear more profitable. Fortunately these plans were dropped, but the damage is done. Another insane decision that still contributes to this neglect: Maintenance is funded by the DB. Construction is funded by the Ministry of Transportation[1]. So the DB neglects infrastructure until it has to be replaced. - Probably the worst one: It competes with cars and trucks. The automobile industry is very powerful in Germany. Properly funding the DB would lower their profits so it doesn't happen. [1] and Digital Infrastructure. Yes, our ministry of transportation is responsible for the information highway. I am not making this up.

makomk 7y ago
Note that EU rules require Deutsche Bahn and every other European train network to be split up in this way, with all the problems it entails. Germany bent the rules quite a bit over the years to keep the operation of its railways as tightly integrated as it could, but it couldn't last. The European Commission is pretty unhappy about the fact they're even under the same holding company.
- anoncake 7y ago
  You're right, the federal government is not to blame for that. Thanks for the reminder.
- def_true_false 7y ago
  As a counterpoint, the Czech Republic has seen a massive improvement in both prices and quality with the forced split and competition with other train companies.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Correlation does not mean causation. It's also possible that splitting and competition improves one railway but would make another worse. Maybe a railway is just organized well enough that splitting is not an improvement. If the timetable gets designed by the director's nephew, something needs to change. But if multiple competing teams produce proposals and the best one gets chosen, you already have the benefits of competing companies without the disadvantages. Or there may be cultural differences between the railway companies. Maybe one company is staffed by hard workers who are motivated by working at a state-owned railway rather than for some capitalist that isn't them and would be offended if you introduced competition hoping to get them to work harder. The other could be staffed by lazy bums who find working for the state distasteful and do need a kick in the arse. Forcing a split could also cause other reforms that outweigh the damage the split causes.