Richard,

I'd suggest the very fact that each was a separate "team" (how I
despise the terminology - as if it's some sort of sporting competition)
with different (and meaningless) names - clearly as a precursor to
privatisation - proves my point.

Were they ALL part of "London Underground" without there being any
division of loyalties, the question of communications and motivation
would hardly arise in the same way that you suggest was a feature here.
I seem to remember that in L.T. days, each "trade" was encouraged to
learn (and there were, I think, incentives to do so) as much about the
operation as a whole and not just their own narrow "team"
responsibility. It was seen as one large (amittedly paternalistic, but
I do not see that as a bad thing) "family", where the ticket collector
felt as much sense of responsibility for the smooth-running of the
service as did the man who drove the train.

I agree that good management does not depend on whether it is in the
public or private sector. My objection is not "privatisation" per se,
but the break-up of an interdependent organisation into the very
"teams" and companies (as opposed to company) that we are now landed
with.

Marc.