When the Munich S-Bahn opened (I was working there at the time), we
were given to understand that the S in that case was for "Schnell".

Then I was confusing Koeln with somewhere else that was different

I always thought that S was for Stadtbahn in Germany and Schnellbahn
in Austria (namely Vienna). Am I wrong ?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message

Having got onto this topic perhaps someone can help me out. The Tories are
against closer integration into Europe claiming loss of sovereignty etc.
If
that is really the case why are they also against returning sovereignty to
Scotland and Wales?


I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the status
quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which centralizes all power in
the Crown, and therefore in the government at Westminster. Therefore moving
power to Edinburgh is just as offensive as moving power to Brussels -
because it detracts from the Sovreignty of Parliament.

Jonn

Giovanni Drogo wrote in article
...
When the Munich S-Bahn opened (I was working there at the time), we
were given to understand that the S in that case was for "Schnell".

Then I was confusing Koeln with somewhere else that was different

I always thought that S was for Stadtbahn in Germany and Schnellbahn
in Austria (namely Vienna). Am I wrong ?

As I understand it:
S-Bahn = Schnellbahn = usually heavy rail commuter trains mostly operated
by DBAG, sometimes with some metro charactaristics.

Stadtbahn = light rail / tram like system, often underground in city
center, elsewhere running on own ROW but with level crossings. Usually
operated by local transit companies.
http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/vrr/bo-brenscheder2x.jpg

German posters: please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is the Karlsruhe system a S-Bahn or a Stadtbahn?

Regards,
David

In article . ac.uk, (Alan J. Flavell) wrote:

Then I was confusing Koeln with somewhere else that was different
from Munich, Berlin and Hamburg. Sorry.

You're also being inconsistent: Koeln/Muenchen, Cologne/Munich. Shades of
"Bayern Munich". :-)

--
Peter Beale

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message

Having got onto this topic perhaps someone can help me out. The Tories
are
against closer integration into Europe claiming loss of sovereignty etc.
If
that is really the case why are they also against returning sovereignty
to
Scotland and Wales?


I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the status
quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which centralizes all power
in
the Crown, and therefore in the government at Westminster. Therefore
moving
power to Edinburgh is just as offensive as moving power to Brussels -
because it detracts from the Sovreignty of Parliament.


But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their sovereignty to the
English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom. So what's wrong
with returning it to them?

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

I'd guess it's because they're Conservatives, e.g. content with the
status
quo. This includes the unwritten constitution which centralizes all
power
in
the Crown, and therefore in the government at Westminster. Therefore
moving
power to Edinburgh is just as offensive as moving power to Brussels -
because it detracts from the Sovreignty of Parliament.


But the Scots (notionally anyway) chose to give up their sovereignty to
the
English Parliament and become part of the United Kingdom. So what's wrong
with returning it to them?


Nothing, I think it makes perfect sense, but then I'm not a Tory... This
doesn't apply to all Conservatives, but the party as a whole has a record of
condemning any changes in the distribution of power that remove it from
Westminster as posing a risk to our way of life in some way. I don't get it
either.

Jonn

David Eerdmans wrote:
As I understand it:
S-Bahn = Schnellbahn = usually heavy rail commuter trains mostly operated
by DBAG, sometimes with some metro charactaristics.

As it is interpreted today, you are correct.
According to some sources, "S-Bahn" originated as "Stadtbahn", though.
The elevated railway line through the centre of Berlin was (and is)
called "Stadtbahn". It provides four tracks, two of which have been
(since it opened in the 1890s) used for a rapid-transit type service.
Electrification, 3rd rail 750V=, was done in the 1920s, and at least
from then on, "Schnellbahn" is also a valid interpretation.
In other cities in Germany, it is "Schnellbahn", but almost always
refered to as "S-Bahn".
In Austria, the trains with the "S"-logo around Vienna (Wien) are
called "Schnellbahn", few use the term "S-Bahn" there.

Stadtbahn = light rail / tram like system, often underground in city
center, elsewhere running on own ROW but with level crossings. Usually
operated by local transit companies.

On some lines, on-street running occurs for a stretch, re-using a
tram line (and sharing tracks with tramcars sometimes) as an
intermediate measure before a tunnel is built (too often,
these "temporary" measures is fairly permanent, as it seems...)

German posters: please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not much need to

Is the Karlsruhe system a S-Bahn or a Stadtbahn?

Stadtbahn, even though it carries the "S-Bahn" logo. In fact, the
borders between the two are somewhat blurry, but true S-Bahn trains
are designed to main-line railway profile and cannot run as trams.
The S-Bahn-logo has been choosen because there are no tunnels
in Karlsruhe (the Stadtbahn logo is an Untergrundbahn-"U" with
"stadtbahn" superimposed on it), and because DBAG is involved in
the operation.
NB, the "Saarbahn" in Saarbrücken has the same mode of operation,
and has a specially designed "S"-logo (white on black square) not
used anywhere else.

HTH,
Klaus

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:13:00 +0100, Klaus von der Heyde
wrote:

[---]

The elevated railway line through the centre of Berlin was (and is)
called "Stadtbahn". It provides four tracks, two of which have been
(since it opened in the 1890s) used for a rapid-transit type service.
Electrification, 3rd rail 750V

I'm not nitpicking, just trying to clear up a nagging doubt: I thought
that the S-Bahn in Berlin was electrified at at least 800V.

That figure stuck in my mind, precisely because it was higher than the
more common 750V which you quote.

"Peter Beale" wrote in message
o.uk...
In article . ac.uk,
(Alan J. Flavell) wrote:

Then I was confusing Koeln with somewhere else
that was different from Munich, Berlin and Hamburg.

You're also being inconsistent: Koeln/Muenchen, Cologne/Munich.
Shades of "Bayern Munich". :-)

Oh, f*** off you boring b******.

(Apologies to everyone else for lowering the tone of the group, but it had
to be said.)

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Andrew Price wrote in article
...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:13:00 +0100, Klaus von der Heyde
wrote:

[---]

The elevated railway line through the centre of Berlin was (and is)
called "Stadtbahn". It provides four tracks, two of which have been
(since it opened in the 1890s) used for a rapid-transit type service.
Electrification, 3rd rail 750V

I'm not nitpicking, just trying to clear up a nagging doubt: I thought
that the S-Bahn in Berlin was electrified at at least 800V.

The railway stock list on mercurio seems to agree with you.

Klaus: thanks for the explanation! :-)

Regards,
David