On 03/01/12 12:52, wrote:
But niot related to UK, and cross-hierarchy crossposting is a pain in
the ass, so please, do not put uk* back when I remove them in fu2.

Not until you ask nicely.

Ian

On 03/01/12 19:18, ian batten wrote:
Now why, if the people were as happy to in the DDR as Luko says, would
that have needed to do that?

To catch western agents smuggling Trabant plans to BMW and Mercedes.

Ian

On Jan 4, 7:17*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Which is a difference between Germany and Britain - we just go by who
owns it (to the extent the issue ever arises, do Germans consider

I suppose that is a big difference with the UK, where even something
that is very much considered nationalised (the NHS, for instance) is
actually made up of a whole bunch of organisations, some more private
than others.

Neil

On Jan 4, 8:30*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 03/01/12 12:52, wrote:

But niot related to UK, and cross-hierarchy crossposting is a pain in
the ass, so please, do not put uk* back when I remove them in fu2.

Not until you ask nicely.

I wish they'd been left in. Following different branches of the same
thread in 3 groups is proving a bit of an annoyance.

Neil

The Real Doctor schrieb:


They wanted West German conditions. They got 'em.


Let's stay with historical correctness: Those, who really took to the
streets, didn't want West German conditions.

Instead, they were sitting together discussing, what they wanted, and
were eliminated from the decisionmaking process along the way.



Hans-Joachim




--

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

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

On 04/01/2012 11:17, Recliner wrote:

In the same way, DOR (the operator of the EC
franchise) and DRS are UK state-owned companies, but neither is a
monopoly.

Out of interest, is moving the glow-in-the-dark stuff tendered, or do
DRS do it by default given who owns them?



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:


It has been well document in a number of press reports that the service
disruptions of 2009/2010 were caused by a lack of rolling stock,

Yes.

which
was in turn caused by a lack of maintenance,

Yes.

which was in turn caused
by

....misdesign of the wheels, which created a huge amount of maintenance,
to make up for faulty manufacturing. Having bought 1000 cars with the
same defect, almost the whole fleet, did not help.



So the root cause of all the problems is the desire to make profit in
the management, instead of the desire to deliver a service which they
lack. That is quite normal for the management of a private company. You
can be asured they don't think of themselves as failures because they
achieved _their_ goal, which is to send a profit to the owner. If they
provide a transport service as a side effect or not is immaterial to
them. However this mentality is disastrous if applied to a public
service, as we can see.

What we can see, is:

Operations like Metronom have given us better quality, by quite a
margin(!), at a lower cost level.



Hans-Joachim


--

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

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

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:12:00 +0000 [UTC], The Real Doctor wrote:
On 04/01/12 18:04, Ross wrote:
It only makes you appear to be unwilling to accept that anything you
disagree with could possibly be true.

And still Lüko declines to state his position on the Holocaust.

As far as I can tell, he declines to state his position on anything
beyond that he seems to be saying that almost everyone else is a
"habitual liar".
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:17:07 +0000 [UTC], Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 04/01/2012 10:11, Lüko Willms wrote:
A follow up to my previous reply to

Am 03.01.2012 14:34, schrieb Recliner:

Who appoints the directors and senior managers in DB, and sets the
objectives, etc? Presuming it's the government, it's the government
that controls the company.

Up to 1993, both Deutsche Bundesbahn and Deutsche Reichsbahn were
actually _administrations,_ part of the state apparatus. Important posts
were civil servants, even the engineers.

Which is a difference between Germany and Britain - we just go by who
owns it (to the extent the issue ever arises, do Germans consider
pre-privatisation (IYSWIM!) British Rail to have been private?)

I suspect that they would say the pre-privatisation TOCs were
privatised.

It seems to me that we have in the UK:-
- State organisations (e.g. NHS, British Transport Commission);
- Wholly state-owned companies (e.g. the operating subsidiaries of the
BTC such as Crosville or Bristol Omnibus) in which all shares are held
by the state and are not traded at all, but which potentially could be
traded in the future, a situation which we call "Nationalised";
- Partially state-owned companies, where some shares are openly traded
but others are held by the state and cannot be bought or sold, which
we would call "Part-privatised"; and
- Private companies, where *all* shares are openly traded, regardless
of who own those shares.

Whereas, it seems to me that in Germany, the setup is:-
- State organisations (e.g. Deutsche Bundesbahn)
- Wholly state owned companies, where all shares are currently held by
the state and are not traded at all, but which potentially could be
traded in the future, a situation which in Germany is called
"privatised".

(The partially state-owned and wholly private companies are, I assume,
just seen as either private or privatised depending on their history
and possibly the political views of the person discussing them).

In any case, the Germans seem to consider DB AG to be "privatised",
where we would (in layman's terms) say it is a "nationalised company"
or possibly that it has been "vested as a trading company" if we were
trying to be clever (and that's probably the wrong description anyway,
so we wouldn't be being that clever!).
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...

On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:41:45 +0100 [UTC], Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

[...]
Until 1984 the DR treated the S-Bahn system basically as one, despite
the wall. Tickets from East to West Berlin were just another fare within
the system, "Preisstufe 10" ("fare level 10"). The network diagrams they
published showed the entire city and were the same on both sides. This
is the last one from 1983:

http://www.schmalspurbahn.de/netze/Netz_1983_klein.gif

It's quite an interesting design too. While it pays reference to the
official party nomenclature ("Berlin" for East Berlin, "Westberlin"
without a hyphen - Lüko uses that in his posts -, the wall designated as
"international border", ghost stations not depicted etc.), it goes
against the party line to an extent. Otherwhise East German publications
would carefully avoid any hint of commonalities between East and West,
while this one not only shows both sides as one, but the design clearly
suggests to the viewer which lines were severed by the wall and ought to
be re-joined. Quite remarkable IMHO.

Very remarkable!

That was a very interesting post, Wolfgang, especially for someone who
has only ever known post-reunification Berlin. Thank you for taking
the time and making the effort to post it.
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...