I find those comparisons always a bit odd, because what you are measuring against is an arbitrary schedule. Any train service can reach near 100% punctuality by adding sufficient slack in the schedule so that most trains are able to reach their destination even before the scheduled time of arrival.
Except they don’t do that. And just expanding the schedule does not work when you need to juggle passenger trains as well as freight trains. Planning for more time between the trains means less throughput and therefore less money. But as a dispatcher, @ZonenRanslite@feddit.org is surely more qualified to argue than any of us.
I thought the blame was on DB, a private company, for taking the profits without any investment on the infrastructure (I just realize, the infra is state/ public?).
The DB is special, it is a state-owned company that is run as a stock corporation. Germany wanted to privatize the Deutsche Bahn in the late 90s, but then called it off in the middle of the conversion process.
A train service with a lot of slack isn’t a successful one though, as it would make them not that competitive in comparison to other means of transportation, by A- the journey looking longer than otherwise and B- the extra slack means that trains are circulating less, and are less profitable
You say that like it’s a bad thing, but being honest about the schedule sounds like an absolute plus - for some reason, organizations within some countries have schedules they cannot meet, and I doubt they aren’t well aware already. It might be because realistic schedules make them look bad, so they just fudge the numbers to make themselves look better?
When you know that in Switzerland train are due late after 3 minutes when it’s 5 minutes in the other countries. And, Switzerland uses its network at >95% with clock face timetable. It actually is making impossible possible.
I find those comparisons always a bit odd, because what you are measuring against is an arbitrary schedule. Any train service can reach near 100% punctuality by adding sufficient slack in the schedule so that most trains are able to reach their destination even before the scheduled time of arrival.
Except they don’t do that. And just expanding the schedule does not work when you need to juggle passenger trains as well as freight trains. Planning for more time between the trains means less throughput and therefore less money. But as a dispatcher, @ZonenRanslite@feddit.org is surely more qualified to argue than any of us.
Germany has ruined the railways through austerity. Thanks, Ministry of Transport.
I thought the blame was on DB, a private company, for taking the profits without any investment on the infrastructure (I just realize, the infra is state/ public?).
The DB is special, it is a state-owned company that is run as a stock corporation. Germany wanted to privatize the Deutsche Bahn in the late 90s, but then called it off in the middle of the conversion process.
A train service with a lot of slack isn’t a successful one though, as it would make them not that competitive in comparison to other means of transportation, by A- the journey looking longer than otherwise and B- the extra slack means that trains are circulating less, and are less profitable
Sure, but the diagram compares train services of different countries against each other, however their scheduling standards are not comparable.
You say that like it’s a bad thing, but being honest about the schedule sounds like an absolute plus - for some reason, organizations within some countries have schedules they cannot meet, and I doubt they aren’t well aware already. It might be because realistic schedules make them look bad, so they just fudge the numbers to make themselves look better?
I am just saying that the graphic compares apples and oranges. No value judgement involved.
When you know that in Switzerland train are due late after 3 minutes when it’s 5 minutes in the other countries. And, Switzerland uses its network at >95% with clock face timetable. It actually is making impossible possible.