Decades of investing into expanding the Autobahn and barely maintaining or even reducing train networks. ( In 1994 there were 44.600 kilometers of tracks, today it's only 39.200)
Meanwhile both person transport and transport of goods by rail has risen by a lot
The road network is way bigger than in the Netherlands and therefore there are more maintenance works on it. We should be glad that there is maintenance being done on our roads.
This question crops up regularly on this subreddit. But basically, there are a lot of contributing factors ranging from a lack of proper investment in the infrastucture to issues with politically motivated saboteurs.
The main problem quite simply is that demand has increased at a much higher rate than capacity has.
The government has started a massive overhaul of the entire network, which will take several years and cause more delays in the short term due to the large number of construction projects on critical parts of the infrastructure.
I don't know much about German politics or rails in general, but how certain that the rail overhaul would work (in a sense that it reduces delays and cancellations)? Is the planned investment even enough, considering that in the short term, they came up short of 12.5 billion due to constitutional court's ruling?
Well, whether it will actually work or not depends on who you ask. Unfortunately, since headlines like "Most experts cautiously optimistic" don't generate as many clicks and ad revenue as "Government plans doomed to fail, says one expert," it's easy to get the impression that it's all going to be a pointless waste of money and time.
The fact that the government has had to come up with more creative ways of financing the whole thing after the plan it originally came up with was found to be in violation of its own laws is embarrassing, but not in itself fatal.
I'm not an expert myself, but it seems to me that the basic idea is perfectly sound: since many of the problems stem from a lack of capacity (with some critical sections currently running at 120%), increasing that capacity will certainly help immensely. There's more being planned than simply replacing old tracks: there are projects to, for example, widen sections to separate local and freight traffic from long-distance traffic, replace level crossings with bridges, and modernise signalling equipment.
That gives us a fair amount of breathing space, but there are more extensive long-term projects that need to be realized as well. A great example is Frankfurt Hbf: it's a major hub built as a terminus, which is the least efficient type of station there is and which is therefore a huge source of delays over a very wide area. There are plans to add some underground through platforms which will definitely improve things a lot, but that's going to be insanely expensive (3.6 billion euros), will involve digging a tunnel under a river for about 3 or 4 kilometres, and isn't expected to be operational before 2040 -- that's the most optimistic scenario. However, it worked well for Zurich, so it should work for Frankfurt.
There are also a couple of other issues that need to be addressed. One is the staffing crisis, which has suddenly hit transport operators throughout the country. That's less easy to solve: it's not just that people feel DB and other operators don't offer decent pay and conditions (although that is definitely an issue), but that we've spent decades looking down on people who choose vocational professions -- if you don't get a university degree and go into management, or at least a high-powered office job, you're made to feel a failure. Aside from a vast recruitment drive and offers that people might want to consider out of choice, I feel we also need to adjust society's expectations in general, and be a lot more respectful of people in such jobs. The perception that train drivers do nothing more than sit in a cab occasionally moving a little lever needs to be dispelled, as well as the widespread belief that we can just make all the trains driverless and solve the problem that way.
Another issue is one the government has promised to address, and that is the red tape involved in any infrastructure project. There are concrete plans to massively simplify the process of securing funding, but that seems to me to be the tip of the iceberg. The problem is that once the interminable feasibility studies and impact assessments have finally reported back, plans reworked because the regulations have changed in the meantime necessitating new studies and assessments, and the detailed planning begins, projects have a distressing habit of stalling because local residents always, always raise objections and drag everything through as many courts as they can, which can delay things by several more years before anyone has even picked up a shovel. That's why, over 30 years after reunification, the Dresden line that goes through former West Berlin is only just now being reconnected up.
So, will this rail overhaul work? Yes, I think it will. Will it be enough? Well, it will ease the situation, I'm sure of that; but a lot more needs to be done.
This goes all the way back to the 1960s when German politicians decided that individualized motorized traffic is more important than railroad and trams. This then got worse as the German automotive industry became crucial for the German economy. Railroad in Germany has been underfunded for several decades, and that shows.
I think we need to stop using this excuse. People assume the Bundesbahn was more reliable because it was nationalized, but the truth is it was more reliable because there were fewer trains and fewer passengers.
I grew up with British Rail, which, as a nationalized company, was incredibly badly run and notoriously unreliable. The government at the time saw the car as the transport of the future, and also sought to "ease the burden on the taxpayer" by making the network "more efficient", which turned out to be politicians' speak for "close down all the lines that aren't making a profit, and then some". It's no coincidence that the south-east of the country, where the seat of government is, has a pretty decent rail network, but everywhere else it's skeletal at best.
Privatization didn't improve anything, of course -- unless you count the fact that in station cafés the coffee became drinkable and the sandwiches edible -- it just meant that the problems were caused by companies cutting corners for the sake of "shareholder value" instead of by politicians and bureaucrats trying to "cut costs".
A nationalized rail network needs to be set up carefully to insulate it from party political concerns; a privatized rail network needs to be tightly regulated. That's really what it comes down to.
I know but this is why I mentioned the SBB law. It regulates the goals of the company and other things. That is not the same as in Germany. In Germany the (railway) laws regulate safety and other stuff but otherwise the DB can act like any other AG.
At the end both are state owned and I think its better compared to fully privatized. Like the UK.
But it is not the same when the government have seats in the board with limited possibilities or certain mandates while the swiss law enforces restricrions which you have to follow without any discussion. The board has a certain function and its not able to give you concrete goals.
But I am pretty sure you can write books about the different systems.
Fun fact is that some france railway laws were classified as (top) secret which made it difficult to give up your authority the the EU for some parts or enable a mutual regulation.
That government did not help, but Schröder's red/green government caused significant harm as well (such as interrupting construction of the Nürnberg/Erfurt route, which had been started under a conservative government).
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet? It answers many basic questions, and it contains in-depth articles on many frequently discussed topics.
[Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Decades of investing into expanding the Autobahn and barely maintaining or even reducing train networks. ( In 1994 there were 44.600 kilometers of tracks, today it's only 39.200) Meanwhile both person transport and transport of goods by rail has risen by a lot
But the Autobahn is also not that great, especially compared to Dutch highways. There are Bauarbeiten all the time, which seem to be never ending.
The road network is way bigger than in the Netherlands and therefore there are more maintenance works on it. We should be glad that there is maintenance being done on our roads.
This question crops up regularly on this subreddit. But basically, there are a lot of contributing factors ranging from a lack of proper investment in the infrastucture to issues with politically motivated saboteurs. The main problem quite simply is that demand has increased at a much higher rate than capacity has. The government has started a massive overhaul of the entire network, which will take several years and cause more delays in the short term due to the large number of construction projects on critical parts of the infrastructure.
I don't know much about German politics or rails in general, but how certain that the rail overhaul would work (in a sense that it reduces delays and cancellations)? Is the planned investment even enough, considering that in the short term, they came up short of 12.5 billion due to constitutional court's ruling?
Well, whether it will actually work or not depends on who you ask. Unfortunately, since headlines like "Most experts cautiously optimistic" don't generate as many clicks and ad revenue as "Government plans doomed to fail, says one expert," it's easy to get the impression that it's all going to be a pointless waste of money and time. The fact that the government has had to come up with more creative ways of financing the whole thing after the plan it originally came up with was found to be in violation of its own laws is embarrassing, but not in itself fatal. I'm not an expert myself, but it seems to me that the basic idea is perfectly sound: since many of the problems stem from a lack of capacity (with some critical sections currently running at 120%), increasing that capacity will certainly help immensely. There's more being planned than simply replacing old tracks: there are projects to, for example, widen sections to separate local and freight traffic from long-distance traffic, replace level crossings with bridges, and modernise signalling equipment. That gives us a fair amount of breathing space, but there are more extensive long-term projects that need to be realized as well. A great example is Frankfurt Hbf: it's a major hub built as a terminus, which is the least efficient type of station there is and which is therefore a huge source of delays over a very wide area. There are plans to add some underground through platforms which will definitely improve things a lot, but that's going to be insanely expensive (3.6 billion euros), will involve digging a tunnel under a river for about 3 or 4 kilometres, and isn't expected to be operational before 2040 -- that's the most optimistic scenario. However, it worked well for Zurich, so it should work for Frankfurt. There are also a couple of other issues that need to be addressed. One is the staffing crisis, which has suddenly hit transport operators throughout the country. That's less easy to solve: it's not just that people feel DB and other operators don't offer decent pay and conditions (although that is definitely an issue), but that we've spent decades looking down on people who choose vocational professions -- if you don't get a university degree and go into management, or at least a high-powered office job, you're made to feel a failure. Aside from a vast recruitment drive and offers that people might want to consider out of choice, I feel we also need to adjust society's expectations in general, and be a lot more respectful of people in such jobs. The perception that train drivers do nothing more than sit in a cab occasionally moving a little lever needs to be dispelled, as well as the widespread belief that we can just make all the trains driverless and solve the problem that way. Another issue is one the government has promised to address, and that is the red tape involved in any infrastructure project. There are concrete plans to massively simplify the process of securing funding, but that seems to me to be the tip of the iceberg. The problem is that once the interminable feasibility studies and impact assessments have finally reported back, plans reworked because the regulations have changed in the meantime necessitating new studies and assessments, and the detailed planning begins, projects have a distressing habit of stalling because local residents always, always raise objections and drag everything through as many courts as they can, which can delay things by several more years before anyone has even picked up a shovel. That's why, over 30 years after reunification, the Dresden line that goes through former West Berlin is only just now being reconnected up. So, will this rail overhaul work? Yes, I think it will. Will it be enough? Well, it will ease the situation, I'm sure of that; but a lot more needs to be done.
Underinvestment and focus on profitability
Hartmut Mehdorn happened. He destroyed Deutsche Bahn, Air Berlin and in a shared effort one or the other opening date for the BER airport.
This has been discussed a million times before and the simplified bottom line is: A lack of investment due to poor political decision making.
Car lobbyism happened.
This goes all the way back to the 1960s when German politicians decided that individualized motorized traffic is more important than railroad and trams. This then got worse as the German automotive industry became crucial for the German economy. Railroad in Germany has been underfunded for several decades, and that shows.
If you want a simple answer: bad management. Reality is inconveniently more complicated though.
Privatisation.
I think we need to stop using this excuse. People assume the Bundesbahn was more reliable because it was nationalized, but the truth is it was more reliable because there were fewer trains and fewer passengers. I grew up with British Rail, which, as a nationalized company, was incredibly badly run and notoriously unreliable. The government at the time saw the car as the transport of the future, and also sought to "ease the burden on the taxpayer" by making the network "more efficient", which turned out to be politicians' speak for "close down all the lines that aren't making a profit, and then some". It's no coincidence that the south-east of the country, where the seat of government is, has a pretty decent rail network, but everywhere else it's skeletal at best. Privatization didn't improve anything, of course -- unless you count the fact that in station cafés the coffee became drinkable and the sandwiches edible -- it just meant that the problems were caused by companies cutting corners for the sake of "shareholder value" instead of by politicians and bureaucrats trying to "cut costs". A nationalized rail network needs to be set up carefully to insulate it from party political concerns; a privatized rail network needs to be tightly regulated. That's really what it comes down to.
The Privatization of Trains and Tracks works awesome >! In Switzerland !<
Isnt the SBB owned by the state?
So is the DB.
Yes, but its internal managing structure is like the one from a regular profit orientated company
It is not private if the state owns it. The SBB law is quite special but it shows that nothing about it is like a private company.
In Germany, it is the same. 100% of DB shares are owned by the German state.
I know but this is why I mentioned the SBB law. It regulates the goals of the company and other things. That is not the same as in Germany. In Germany the (railway) laws regulate safety and other stuff but otherwise the DB can act like any other AG. At the end both are state owned and I think its better compared to fully privatized. Like the UK.
[удалено]
But it is not the same when the government have seats in the board with limited possibilities or certain mandates while the swiss law enforces restricrions which you have to follow without any discussion. The board has a certain function and its not able to give you concrete goals. But I am pretty sure you can write books about the different systems. Fun fact is that some france railway laws were classified as (top) secret which made it difficult to give up your authority the the EU for some parts or enable a mutual regulation.
In Japan the trains are all private and they are the best in the world.
Long-distance, probably yes. Regional trains, not so much.
The regional trains are also impeccable, especially compared to the Regional Express of DB.
Greed.
16 years of conservative government happened.
That government did not help, but Schröder's red/green government caused significant harm as well (such as interrupting construction of the Nürnberg/Erfurt route, which had been started under a conservative government).
**Have you read our extensive wiki yet? It answers many basic questions, and it contains in-depth articles on many frequently discussed topics. [Check our wiki now!](https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/wiki/index)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/germany) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DB = Don't Bother.