Am 16.01.2012 01:21, schrieb :
What about the wayside signals and redundant systems, however?

I don't know.


Cheers,
L.W:

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:


You think the fact that a workshop was closed made no difference?

For trains delivered as ordered? No.

For maintenance?

No.

The additional maintenance facility comes in very handy for the
reactivation of the 485, though, and of course, it is necessary for all
the units with miscalculated wheel strength.



So you say that all the newspaper reports and the trade unions blaming
that management decision got it all wrong?

Name one journalist in Germany, who understands railway technology,
outside of the special interest press. Just one. 95% of them aren't
able to understand the difference between driver and guard. 95% might be
an underestimation.

The trade unions will most probably be right, that the additional
facility is necessary for a fleet including the 485s, and I agree, that
the 485 should never have gone out of service.

But the core of the problems is the miscalulated wheels of 1000 new
S-Bahn cars.



Read again: The S-Bahn management pumped money out of the company to DB.
Are you denying this

Of course not! DB does this with /all/ its contracts, which it has
received at inflated prices without bidding. The S-Bahn Berlin isn't
special in that regard.

That's what they use for going shopping, in Britain, Denmark, Netherlands,
etc. pp.



Hans-Joachim





--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg

Am 18.01.2012 12:50, schrieb Hans-Joachim Zierke:
That's what they use for going shopping, in Britain, Denmark, Netherlands,
etc. pp.

You always preach that the railway should be organized as a money
pumping undertaking for the railway companies.

So why do you bother?


L.W.

On 18/01/2012 19:42, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Hans-Joachim wrote in
. com:


Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:


You think the fact that a workshop was closed made no difference?

For trains delivered as ordered? No.

For maintenance?

No.

That doesn't seem very plausible, because you need a workshop to do any
maintenance.

While it is more relevant to a small open access operator than a great
big S-bahn, presumably you could in principle outsource maintenance to
someone else who owns a workshop.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Am 18.01.2012 22:01, schrieb Arthur Figgis:

While it is more relevant to a small open access operator than a great
big S-bahn, presumably you could in principle outsource maintenance to
someone else who owns a workshop.

Well, if you don't find a place in your street to park your car, you
can as well park it on the moon.

Oh, you don't know how to get on the moon and back?
Let that be the worry of the technicians!


Cheers,
L.W.

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:


You think the fact that a workshop was closed made no difference?

For trains delivered as ordered? No.

For maintenance?

No.

That doesn't seem very plausible, because you need a workshop to do any
maintenance.

They still had enough workshop capacity for /that/ maintenance.



So you say that all the newspaper reports and the trade unions
blaming that management decision got it all wrong?

Name one journalist in Germany, who understands railway technology,
outside of the special interest press. Just one.

No I asked you a question. Don't turn it into a homework for me.

I easily understand, that you don't like your homework. After all, you
won't be able to come up with a single name. So ...

....yes, the press got it wrong, not all wrong, but mostly. For lack of
in-house competence, they had to believe somebody. And it is very
understandable, that they didn't believe the S-Bahn management. I won't
have either.



That is not the claim they made when the system broke down two years
ago. They claimed that the closedown of one workshop is to blame for
that specific failure. Do you agree or not?

I don't agree. The claim was false, they misinformed the public in the
interest of their personal gains.

As soon as the faulty wheelsets were detected, it was right, though, due
to the high frequency of additional checks to those wheelsets.



Read again: The S-Bahn management pumped money out of the company to
DB. Are you denying this

Of course not!

And you think that's not a problem?

Of course it is, but in comparison to other examples, it was harmless. At
least, I can't identify anybody in Berlin, who got bri.... emmh, let's
say: massive financial advantages after giving them the sweet conditions,
as in Bavaria or Brandenburg.



If pumping out money risks system failures, the conclusion is that they
can and likely will occur elsewhere anytime soon.

It has occurred at other places, and currently does. Just say "Talent2".
But if the same happens at other places, they just run 1950s locos plus
old Silberlinge, and it works, not good, but somehow. Such replacement is
impossible with the S-Bahn Berlin.
(That's why wiser people in management would have kept all the 485
around.)


The S-Bahn Berlin isn't special in that regard.

Whoever claimed that? Privatisation is a nationwide and even
international phenomenon, with negative consequences wherever it's
done.

Tendering has given us a much higher quality of railroad operation in
Germany. Just compare DB Regio NRW's filthy trains with a Nordwestbahn
unit, or DB's horrible (and initially unsafe) 425 with an Eurobahn FLIRT,
which operates at lower cost to the taxpayer.

Without the railroad reform, there won't be /any/ train in this region
here at all, because the Bundesbahn tried again and again to close it.
(Several thousand passengers today.)

The best example for the results of tendering is the Metronom, which
gained +50% passengers in just two years.


But the point isn't privatisation, but tendering. When the Metronom won
its first bid, it was owned, directly or indirectly, by Niedersachsen,
Bremen, and Hamburg, so "privatisation" is nonsense. Quality of service
around Karlsruhe has seen major improvements by replacing DB by the AVG,
with tenthousands of additional passengers per day. But the AVG is
owned by the city.


Likewise, the HzL often operates at a higher quality level than DB, on
rural routes in Baden-Württemberg. Again, the HzL is owned by (mostly)
Baden-Württemberg.


So it would be inprecise, to claim that major progress for
"privatisation", because it mostly isn't.




Hans-Joachim



--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg

Arthur Figgis schrieb:


While it is more relevant to a small open access operator than a great
big S-bahn, presumably you could in principle outsource maintenance to
someone else who owns a workshop.

The Metronom operation isn't that small, but does not own a workshop.


Hans-Joachim


--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg

Am 18.01.2012 22:34, schrieb Hans-Joachim Zierke:
While it is more relevant to a small open access operator than a great
big S-bahn, presumably you could in principle outsource maintenance to
someone else who owns a workshop.

The Metronom operation isn't that small, but does not own a workshop.

you always suppress this fact when praising the small number of
people directly employed by Metronom, which means that you cheat.

Besides, there is a maintenance center built for the Metronom stock,
and that is owned and operated by the largest shareholder of Metronom.


Cheeers,
L.W.