Siemens and Kawasaki Angry At Chinese HSR Plans
The Wall Street Journal reports that Siemens and Kawasaki are angry with China for trying to resell to California HSR tech those two companies licensed to China for their own HSR project:
California’s state government has similar concerns. The state is interested in getting Chinese help to build a planned high-speed railway, but may run into opposition from foreign companies such as Germany’s Siemens AG and Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. who licensed their high-speed train technology to China with the understanding it would be used exclusively within China. Chinese companies can’t use the technology in products they intend to export, these companies contend, citing technology-transfer contracts they signed with China’s Ministry of Railways.
China has insisted, however, that the technology it now uses for high-speed trains it produces are its own and the result of its “self innovation,” having “re-innovated” the foreign technologies it acquired from Siemens, Kawasaki and others.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office has declined to comment about the state’s interest in Chinese trains, but Jeffrey Barker, a deputy executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, has told The Wall Street Journal that California is still years away from taking bids from manufacturers. When it does, he says, the “process will certainly ensure that any technology transferred to the United States is done so properly, in accordance with all intellectual-property laws.”
While Barker is definitely right that the bids from manufacturers are years away, the question of external funding will come up much more quickly. China has expressed interest in helping fund the California HSR project, but that would likely involve us selecting Chinese HSR tech – which, according to Siemens and Kawasaki, is actually their tech and not for China to resell. For China, the purpose of helping fund California HSR is to get long-term contracts to buy Chinese-built trainsets (which might have their final assembly here in California, but would be sourced from Chinese parts and funds paid to Chinese businesses). So if Siemens and/or Kawasaki won a case either in California state courts, US federal court, or at the World Trade Organization, China’s interest in funding HSR might not be quite as strong.
Of course, this could be resolved if Japan stepped up to help fund California HSR, in order for us to buy Kawasaki trainsets. Germany and/or the European Union could do the same for its train industry. I’d suggest the US do the same, but we’ve apparently decided we don’t want to have domestic manufacturing any longer.
“with the understanding”, or “with it spelled out clearly in writing, in the contract”? There’s a big difference.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:25 am
I’ve read the contracts stated that no more than 25% of the transferred technology could be used for export. 25% from each of the big four (Alstom, Bombardier, Kawasaki, Siemens)=100% Chinese technology.
Alstom Transport was the first to understand what the Chinese were doing and insisted on any further ventures being equality-partnerships, which the Chinese refused. The other three still believed China’s internal needs were so big that it would take decades before it had spare capacity for export. They have now realised they were wrong, but too late.
The Chinese are now laundering “their” technology through GE, which will make it perfectly acceptable in America. GE paid for it. It is now 100% American.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:06 am
@ Andre Peretti
> I’ve read the contracts stated that no more than 25% of the transferred technology could be used for export.
Not true. Transferred tech is for Chinese domestic market use only.
> The Chinese are now laundering “their” technology through GE,
This doesn’t work under the US law. Thus CSR is banned from bidding on US projects.
Its beyond me why there aren’t any american companies who will design and manufacture american high speed trainsets, with american labor to sell to american high speed rail authorities. At a time when americans need jobs. I mean it must take a lot of effort for a country to be as stupid as we are being right now. hello is any body in charge of this place I see the lights are still on but…..
Alan Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
But with idiot politicians like those clowns in Wisconsin and Ohio, who in their right mind would want to invest capital in a US firm at the moment? As much as I believe in the possibilities of HSR, I’d have a hard time recommending that capital be invested in a business that lives or dies on the political whim of the moment.
Reality Check Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
The “idiot politicians” were elected by the idiot voters. Our government is failing at all levels. Our system only works as well as the electorate is collectively reasonably intelligent and well-informed by a functioning media. But the media “fire at 10!”, “shooting at 11!” isn’t delivering much in the way of voter education as to what the hell is really going on “big picture”. Where’s the analysis? Where’s the fact checking? Where’s the busting of lies and spin? Where’s the historical perspective? Shows like TRMS that do that sort of thing don’t get many viewers. What to do?
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
people don’t care so they get what they deserve which is why I keep saying its time for california to save itself and dump the loser US before they drag us down into ruin.
( reminds me of a rude and inappropriate saying we used to have around here in certain cirlces, which I can’t repeat but that suggested leaving the one who was holding you back and going in a new direction)
Its time. Because the national BS is only going to get worse as time goes on.
Dan S. Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Indisputable truism: the voting public gets the representation they deserve. The only solution I can come up with is to improve our education system. I remember my (outstanding, public) junior high school classes where we analyzed the biases in actual newspaper articles. That exercise all by itself is one of my most valued lessons I have ever received. I can’t help but believe that the audience for Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, would wither against a nation of skilled critical thinkers.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Its all most brainwashing with the constant propaganda pumped out by those mouthpieces of Fox news.. I don’t know if they actually believe in themselves or they’re just doing it for the money.. this election was determined by aging boomers that tend to watch this crap and that is their audience .Ever stay home on sick day from work and watch this stuff? All the ads are for Medicare ,electric scooters on and on. What was irresponsible with the election is the fact that many people that came out in 2008 did not in November 2010 and it shows.. the pathetic Tea party is jumping up and down like everything now is their mandate. Including the smear job against high-speed rail.. meanwhile were spending $1 billion a day in the Middle East which would pay for a high-speed rail program in a whopping eight days
wu ming Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:16 am
it’s not as simple as that; due to supermajority requirements in both CA state leg and the national senate, more often than not a minority of the voting public gets what they want at the expense of what the majority wants, because of procedural barriers.
if governance was all simple majority, your statement would be closer to accurate.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:25 am
That is especially critical when it comes to the decision of large corporations on effective propaganda and advocacy efforts, since if an acceptable outcome is incompetent governance leaving our large private governments run on one-dollar, one-vote principles with a largely free reign … then whipping an activist base of a minority party into a frenzy can be is as effective at preventing anything from happening as a reasoned appeal to the unaffiliated and less engaged independent portion of the electorate. And buying phony populists and giving them a platform is a straightforward proposition ~ the wealthy of Latin America were able to accomplish it in the 19th century with far more primitive propaganda techniques at their disposal than modern marketing provides.
Of course, just as there were Conservative and Whig Lords in 18th Century England, there are more moderate large corporations that for one or another reason wish to retain a national government with a modicum of capacity to administer things like infrastructure and workforce education, so its not as if all the large corporations are in favor of the Beck, OxyMoron and PAT (People Against Themselves) Party strategy.
YESONHSR Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
And there are plenty of idiots now alive in the USA.just read some of the stupid nonsense comments about HSR in any online news story
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
you mean like these in the blog for a wisconsin paper on the loss of hsr:
I wonder, since there’s NEVER Been any input of the sort, how actual railroad companies weigh in on this back and forth nonsense/i>
Many train companies are weary because they are smaller and are afraid that the larger companies will charge more for the use of nicer tracks but for the most part I have heard they are for the improvements
Yes its true. All those worried “train companies” out there in america, being all worried and stuff. All of them. Worried but no input from “any” of them on whether high speed rail is a good idea. So one has to assume that if the train companies of america are worried and not talking about hsr, then it must be a bad idea. Darn train companies.
RG Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Why would a US company invest in a technology that has very little chance of being implemented by Governments (Federal and State) in America, except for a couple of corridors at best (if that)? The prospect for a US company to make trains for the European market are also very slim. European based HSR operators are Government owned and therefore under political pressure to buy local, therefore they would not buy trains from a US company when there are plenty of EU based ones. In support of that assertion note that ICE trains in Germany are made by Germany based Siemens, French TGVs are made by France based Alstom, Spanish AVE are made by Spanish Talgo, Italian trains are made by Italian Ansaldo-Breda.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Firstly, because even with only four or five corridors in America (Florida HSR, CA HSR, DesertXpress as certain; Texas HSR as a likely, probably something in the Midwest as well, possibilities at least for equipment in NEC), that’s a fairly large market to sell to. CAHSR alone is planning on a total of 212 trainsets (many of which will be operating doubled up to form 400m trains) in the full build out.
Secondly, it has the potential to be a significant export market. Brazil is building a high speed rail network; Canada, Mexico, and Australia have expressed interest in building similar lines themselves.
Thirdly, you are rather mistaken that there is no market potential in Europe. Russia, for instance, uses German high speed trains. Spain’s AVE S/102 and S/112 are manufactured by Talgo (Spanish) and Bombardier (Canadian) while the S/100 and the S/103 are made by the French Alstom and German Siemens respectively. Britain has a variety of imported trainsets.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that GE has already teamed up with China’s locomotive building company to build them in the United States for American networks.
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Teaming up with an existing manufacturer is one thing. Developing the technology from scratch, when you’re decades behind (though it probably wouldn’t take that long to catch up) is completely different.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Which would be why an agreement should involve technology transfers.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I would think that a company like GE would be an obvious choice. Didn’t they build the atom bomb? Im sure they can come up with a train. Or how bout Lockheed. They built the fastest plane ever made so Im sure they could a train too. ( we had those on the base where i grew u and used to watch them fly all the time. I had a 5th grade teacher, Mrs Widdifield who’s husband was one of the pilots who flew it breaking the speed record
September 01, 1974
SR-71A #61-17972
New York to London (World Record-Speed Over a Recognized Course): Distance: 3,461.53 statute miles…Time: 1hr 54 min 56.4 secs. Average Speed 1,806.95 statute mph.
Crew: Major’s James V. Sullivan, Pilot and Noel F. Widdifield, Reconnaissance Systems Operator
Go to this web page for complete information and photos of the New York to London Record Flight:
http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srspee~1.htm
new york to london in 1 hour 54 minutes. so I’ll be they could build a train that could get us from sf t0 la in a reasonable amount of time. hmm at that speed it would be what.. like 15 minutes I think. well now that would be convenient!
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Unfortunately, unlike those, HSR R&D is not funded by a disproportionate military budget.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:29 am
There’s a mistake ~ as aviation fuel gets scarcer, the military might want to think how much of their valuable fuel they want to be burned up by the civil aviation sector.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:04 am
The atom bomb, That would be the Manhattan Project and GE had nothing to do with that, That was purely the work of Government, Only a few top people in the Military and the Intelligence communities knew of that, Of course FDR knew It also, He had to, But then the war killed Him. Republicans up until President Eisenhower was elected wanted to repeal the New Deal and especially Social Security, Old Dog, Old Tricks, New Faces, Not much has changed really.
mike Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I would think that a company like GE would be an obvious choice. Didn’t they build the atom bomb? Im sure they can come up with a train. Or how bout Lockheed. They built the fastest plane ever made so Im sure they could a train too.
Jim, you’re 40 years too late. That’s the exact same thing Boeing-Vertol said back in 1970 – “We make hi-tech helicopters and planes…how hard could it be to build a simple trolley car?” How did those Boeing-Vertol LRVs work out for MUNI and MBTA?
As The Rock used to say, “Know your role!”
Eric M Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
But GE has been in the rail business for a while now. Take a look here, here and here.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Now now, just because they’ve built tens of thousands of locomotives is no reason to think they have some sort of relevant expertise.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Or how bout Lockheed. They built the fastest plane ever made so Im sure they could a train too.
They had a shot at it back in the 70s. Grumman buses and Lockheed trolleys, it was a disaster.
Isaac Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am
And actually the first HST here was the French one, the S/100, in 1992. And before the “standarisation” of the control modes with ERTMS.
10 years later, Talgo and CAF started to build their own high speed trains because the success of the first AVE guaranteed them an stable market.
Who knows if the history could repeat in the USA if the Tampa-Orlando and LA-SF are successful.
Best.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Talgo and CAF had already had modern rolling stock manufacturing operations to start with. The US has, what, US Railcar making shit DMUs and GE making freight locomotives?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
You clearly missed the SPUR forum where world-renowned (Mineta Institute!) transportation planning and transportation economics expert Rod “Intergalactic” Diridon proclaimed that one of the benefits of HSR in California would be that we would be able to sell manufactured trains and known-how to “emerging economies such as China”.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Jerry Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
CAHSR Board member Diridon was scheduled to attend the 7th World Congress on High Speed Rail which met in Beijing Dec. 7 thru 9. He was to attend on behalf of the Mineta Institute and was scheduled to give a speech at the meeting.
I’m always amazed at how brazen the Chinese can be– both with stolen tech and phrase-turning: are they really going with “re-innovated”? Is that anything like “Democracy with Chinese Characteristics”?
Euro companies have raised this concern before, though. Last time it went something like: (Siemens-designed?) maglev starts in Shanghai, mysterious fire in maglev system is put out by Chinese “firefighters”, native maglev is suddenly re-innovated in Chengdu. Expats in China have been making similar claims of stolen tech and intellectual property for years– I’m always surprised how quickly we (myself included) all just assumed that those claims are true without blinking. I think that says more about expats in China, than it does about the Chinese, though.
Ehh, I suppose if you’re 5,000 years-old, you just assume everything’s just re-innovated anyway. I can only imagine those court pleadings, though: “Those aren’t German trains… they’re German trains with Chinese characteristics!”
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
The nerve of them! The next thing you know they’ll be launching preemptive wars.
Something clearly needs to be done about the uppity swarming little slanty-eyed yellow people.
Dan S. Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
RM, your sarcasm is neither brazen nor edgy. It is simply inappropriate. Drop it.
Spokker Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Haha, this time, he was actually spot-on and funny at the same time.
American egos need to be brought down a peg or two.
Dan S. Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Spokker, your cultural sensitivity is equally impressive.
Spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Me Chinese. Me play joke. Me put pee-pee in your coke.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:45 am
omg lol I had forgotten that one.
Spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:03 am
Watch it, jim, it’s really racist and insensitive. I mean, gosh, only every 10 year old knows it.
Ironically, I learned most of the Asian jokes and stereotypes I know from my Asian friends growing up!
As kids we pointed out the differences, most of them funny, between cultures and ethnicities all the time. I’m not exactly sure what age everybody gets a broomstick stuck up their asses.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Puberty most likely.
spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Shrug.
It seems that we are so preoccupied with convincing people that we are mature that we forget what it was like to be a kid and not be offended by every other thing people say.
By the way, Richard’s original joke was actually misunderstood and was meant to be insulting to Americans, not the Chinese. That’s the point.
Dan S. Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I agree your language is childish. You may choose to speak as an adult in a public arena. You may choose not to. Re: RM, I certainly realized that the Chinese were not his intended target. That wasn’t actually my point.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
In other words its ok to make fun of ‘murcans, but not anyone else.
I prefer to be an equal opportunity maker funner of.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
This is like the Japanese law against flag burning: it outlaws burning flags of other country, to avoid giving offense, burning the Japanese flag is of course permitted as domestic political discourse.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
to some extent though we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves and with each other. Otherwise you’re exhausted doing constant battle. One also has to be able to discern the subtle differences between maliciously targeting someone to be hurtful, versus using humor to soften the point. And beyond that I’d rather people be free to say whatever they want so I can see who they are versus brow beating people into being paranoid and sneaky so you never know where they are coming from.
But whatever.
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 12:09 am
“You may choose to speak as an adult in a public arena. You may choose not to.”
*fart*
Spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:05 am
By the way, many people in this thread are talking about how the Chinese make shit products and are backwards and untrustworthy. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be made fun of for eating beans and rice (LOL LATINO) rather than being incompetent in every way.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:14 am
for real. remember the cartoons of yore? Boris Badenov and Natasha… for instance. talk about stereotypes. But those were funny as *** plus that’s how we learned our world history right?
and while the chinese may not have actually peepee’d in our coke, they did do other stuff…
so now it would be like, me chinese, mess with head, me make kids toys full if lead. and so forth.
Spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Chinese do make shit products, though. Americans don’t make anything.
Oh wait, we do manage to put salmonella in our lettuce. I’ll give us that.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The Chinese make crappy products because Amurikans want to buy crappy products. 50 years ago the Japanese made crappy products because Amurikans were willing to buy crappy Japanese products. If someone wants to pay the Chinese to make quality products they will, they do, it’s just that Walmart, Kmart, Target and a wide variety of dollar stores don’t sell them.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Thats the truth- if it doesn’t cost 19.99 or or 2 for $5 people won’t buy it.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
reply to adirondacker: except that between Back to the Future’s “No wonder this broke… it says Made in Japan!” and today, the Japanese improved their tech, and now we buy Japanese stuff because it’s NOT crap. “What are you talking about, Doc? All the best stuff in Made in Japan!”
China ought to be switching gears from Wal-Mart crap to higher-quality stuff, which is where the real money is. And Wal-Mart’s labor practices are awful. I don’t shop there.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
The Chinese make shit products ~ they also make excellent products to exacting standards. Its capitalism in the raw, after all ~ it depends on which way makes RMB¥1 more per unit.
And while only trustworthy to those who are within their circle of trust is an objective assessment of the way that Chinese culture tends to work, “backwards” mostly means ‘I notice they ways they are backwards, while I take the way my country is backwards for granted’. The ozzies and pommies, for example, tend to have a mutual “what a bunch of backward gits” relationship.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I’d rather do business with china than say, texas.
Victor Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Yep, The Chinese, It seems Mainland China seems to like to licensing stuff and then disregard their license, maybe, Considering the Government there is a Communist one, Is It any wonder that they might do this? I would hope that the Chinese Government will do the right thing. If the HSR trains they have is of their own development, Then they will have to prove It beyond a shadow of any doubt in a fair and honest court of law here in the USA, Otherwise they can forget US buying their stuff, Especially If they want to manufacture and assemble everything over there and not here.
Call Me skeptical on the Chinese, I’d just like to see them prove their right and do that here in this country.
Now how About Germany and Siemens stepping up to help Fund California’s HSR? Or even Japan and Kawasaki?
Alex2000 Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Just to play devils advocate here…
In the end isn’t this a pro California HSR blog? In the end, don’t we just care that this thing
is built. If the Chinese are willing to pony up to help pay for the thing, using their trains
with “evolved/stolen” Japanese/German tech at the probably lower cost, why not take the money and run? Do what it takes to build the thing. If the Germans and Japanese are screwed in the process, why is that California’s problem?
I suppose the case is going to be made that the Chinese tech is inferior to the Japanese/German tech. But one can’t make that case, and then moan about Chinese stealing that same tech.
And with all the track the Chinese are putting up, they have to be learning something with all that hands on experience.
That being said, I did live in Japan for 5 years, loved taking the Shinkansen. Loved the JR service…
But I think someone needed to state the obvious here….
James Fujita Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
If Japan and Germany are pissed off, they will make it our problem.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Yep and in our courts with our laws, Lawyers don’t care where their money comes from, Can You say License to print money? The old saying I should have been a lawyer comes to mind, But My parents never said such things to Me.
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:39 am
It’s part of the Job Creation thing.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I agree with alex. I feel no fondness for germany nor japan. Only cali. WE go with the best deal. period. international relations is washington DCs problem. Let them deal with that. ( you know since they are so competent) This just shows again that our state, should be free to forge our own trade deals, our own immigration policies, are own international relationships, and do as we please with the ***for brains in washington having any say about any of it. and give us back our damn money too. That needs to stop.
James Fujita Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Maybe if we pretend that none of this is happening, it will just fade away.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
I dont care if its china or a European bidder as long as we get a partner to help build this thing and shut up all the naysayers and deniers… like a certain John Horgan in in the silly San Mateo Times who just wrote an article about high-speed rails handouts are over.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I’m still hoping that the Big One will finally hit and permanently sever our ties from the rest of the US. There are just Red states East of here and I’m willing to float on the Ocean and drift Westward. Will pick up Hawai’i on the way as well.
Dan S. Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
America should care because it should value the rights of invention highly. America’s present and future economic vitality depends on its inventiveness and ability to create new technologies and new fields of business. If America does not respect the rights of inventors to benefit from their ideas, then it encourages others to do so as well, jeopardizing our current competitive advantage.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:10 am
@ Alex2000
> If the Chinese are willing to pony up to help pay for the thing, using their trains
with “evolved/stolen” Japanese/German tech at the probably lower cost, why not take the money and run?
The US law doesn’t permit such actions. Thus CSR is banned from bidding on US projects.
bleh Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
If Japan and Germany decide that reinnovating Hollywood movies is fine and dandy it will be California’s problem. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Let’s hope somebody better.. because with the pathetic visionless ideologues taking over the House high-speed rail funding is going to be very lean.. and starting in 2013-2014 we need the big money (at least 3biilion per year) or we are not going to open a system LA- San Francisco in 2020
wu ming Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:21 am
the chinese govt is communist only in the sense that they have a red flag. economically, it’s more authoritarian capitalist, of the sort that the US used to sponsor coups d’etat to put in power.
except (and it’s a big except) they’re not total craven puppets of foreign investors, but instead are interested in leveraging said capitalism to strengthen their own national economy and domestic power players in the economy.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Authoritarian capitalist..just what the necons would love for the US if they could get away with it..
wu ming Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:19 am
well, the chinese did get lessons from milton friedman in the 80-s, when they were ditching communism. ol milt praised their response to tian’anmen, after all.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
They are getting away with. look outside your window.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:35 am
That used to be us. When Dickens toured the US, he was surprised by how famous he was. Then he found out that his books were bought off the boat by US publishers who copied the text and sold their own copies, cheap, and most of his US audience were consuming legally pirated copies ~ we weren’t even [b][i]in[/i][/b] the “copyright on creation” Geneva convention until the 1980′s.
Of course, we had copyright protection ~ we even had international copyright protection in the Pan American conventions ~ but primarily for works published in the US and registered for copyright protection, which offered far more effective protection to domestic than to foreign authors.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:53 am
‘used to be’ ? You’ll be wanting to look at some of the trade agreements that the US has; a number are disproportionally weighted towards the US with regards to copyrights and recognition of patent law.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Yeah, but we do the tilt differently than we used to do. I’m not saying we advanced into a glowing period of enlightened respect for the need to respect other countries, its just that we have a different strategy for ripping people off than when we were the leaders in copyright piracy.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:39 am
“Now how About Germany and Siemens stepping up to help Fund California’s HSR?”
We, in Europe, have to bail out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and possibly Spain. California is not on the list.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Well we are a business venture..so it would be profitable ,thou as you stated Europe is bailing out those members ,they might be able to invests some funds thou not the 43 billion we have heard from Asia
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:09 am
@ Victor
> Now how About Germany and Siemens stepping up to help Fund California’s HSR?
German government won’t finance, but Japanese government will. The term of Japanese loan is already known, a loan upto $40 billion.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Then go with Japan, they have a good round number, Building something requires both money and a legal right to use the available technology, Japan has both, China might or might not, Germany has no money and has Technology, France has Technology and hasn’t said anything of on Money, So Japan is the leading Candidate for HSR here in CA to Me.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
We could always just screw with everyone’s head and go Italian.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
We’ll see, I think though that the French have the lead with Germany close behind, at least with Me. Me I’m partial to the TGV style trains.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@ Victor
While France does offer loans, they may not match loans from Asian countries, and French bids cost much more than Asian bids.
Primary contractor of California HSR system will almost certainly be Asian, be it Japanese(With efSET, not Shinkansen. But this requires that the bid date is pushed back to 2015 or later) or Korean. Chinese are out due to legal issues.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
well at least the italians have style. And style is important.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
@ Victor
> Then go with Japan
Shinkansen trains cannot operate in a mixed traffic condition like one in California HSR, where Amtrak, Caltrain, Metrolink, and eventually DesertXpress trains would share tracks. Thus Shinkansen system is disqualified from California HSR project.
> France has Technology and hasn’t said anything of on Money
Franch government did offer loans on past civil construction projects.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Ok I’ve not heard of It, I can’t hear or read about everything, If they offer theirs would run in Mixed traffic as We will have that here and there, French Money is as good as anyone elses, Money is money afterall.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@ Victor
> If they offer theirs would run in Mixed traffic as We will have that here and there
They don’t, it’s all Shinkansen or nothing, with the single exception of Chinese HSR lines where Shinkansen E2 shares track with Velaro. But that’s because Chinese don’t care about safety.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Shinkansen trains cannot operate in a mixed traffic condition
Why not? Is it something fundamental about the Shinkansen trains that makes them unable to operate under the proposed mixed-traffic situations?
The bulk of the Shinkansen don’t operate in mixed-traffic in Japan because they are of a different rail and loading gauge than the previous (and still existing) rail network.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
@ thatbruce
> Why not? Is it something fundamental about the Shinkansen trains that makes them unable to operate under the proposed mixed-traffic situations?
Shinkansen trains were never designed with a collision accident in mind as its Japanese designers were convinced that a collision was impossible with all the positve traffic control system put into Shinkansen.
Accordingly, Shinkansen trains do not meet the current US passenger train collision standard and forthcoming US high speed passenger train collision standard.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:13 am
I don’t have the technical data to prove or disprove the underlying design assumptions about the Japanese (domestic) Shinkansen models, but I doubt that they were designed without any nod towards collision handling.
I do agree that they, along with any off-the-shelf models from Europe, do not meet the current FRA collision standards. The fact that Japan is looking to enter the US HSR market would indicate that they are certain that their trains would be acceptable under revised rulings regarding collision standards.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Go to japantransport.com and read some of the recent slides. By the Japanese trainmakers’ own admission, they satisfy 100 t collision standards, versus 200 in Europe; they argue that away by noting that the Shinkansen has never had an accident fatality.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
In fact, the “Mini-Shinkansen” trains can run on “conventional” tracks. These trains run in mountainous areas where Japanese “broad gauge” (our standard gauge) tracks would be problematic.
The only real fundamental difference between the “Mini-Shinkansen” and regular Shinkansen is the track gauge. Somehow the “Mini-Shinkansen” trains can run on both types of track, but I’m not sure of the technology involved.
In any case, the Shinkansen does not generally run in mixed traffic, which personally I think is a good thing. If we had more ROWs available, or at least wider ROWs in California, it would be preferable to keep HSR and commuter trains separate as well. However, that is currently not possible… YET.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
@ James Fujita
> In fact, the “Mini-Shinkansen” trains can run on “conventional” tracks.
Mini-Shinkansen trains still do not meet US passenger train crash standard and cannot be operated in mixed traffic.
Kawasaki is aware of this problem and is developing efSET to address this problem. However, it won’t be ready for years, not in time for California HSR bidding.
> The only real fundamental difference between the “Mini-Shinkansen” and regular Shinkansen is the track gauge.
Same track gauge, different loading gauge.
> it would be preferable to keep HSR and commuter trains separate as well.
And doing so will break the bank. Mixed traffic is a reality in most of US HSR corridors. Train models that cannot share traffics with Amtrack trains are not welcome in the US.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
US passenger train crash standards are worth shit. Since the FRA dinosaur won’t update the standards, we have to get FRA waivers, which would allow for mixed traffic. There’s no such thing as an FRA compliant, heavyweight HSR. Acela won’t cut it.
For the time being, mixed traffic (in parts of Southern California and on the San Francisco Peninsula) will be the way to go. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only way or the best way. If Metrolink ever wants to expand or increase service, it will need to find a way to separate out from Cal HSR.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@ James Fujita
> Since the FRA dinosaur won’t update the standards, we have to get FRA waivers, which would allow for mixed traffic.
Shinkansen still doesn’t qualify even after a waiver, since the current proposal is to accept European crash standard which is twice as strong as Shinkansen standard. Everyone else except Japanese and Chinese bidders can meet this standard, and this is why European crash standard is expected to be adopted for the US.
> There’s no such thing as an FRA compliant, heavyweight HSR.
Say hello to TGV and KTX-II with 500 ton locomotives, 5 times the strength of a Shinkansen train.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
A central question is whether with PTC in place, possibly with some constraints, headway separation will be considered adequate time segregation to count a time-slice service. Alon Levy claims so. If that is the case, then the HSR won’t be running in mixed service, they will be running in their own single-service slice.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
f Metrolink ever wants to expand or increase service
Instead of renting old NJTransit Comets that Utah refurbished maybe Metrolink could buy HSR compliant trains and run on the HSR tracks….
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Stop using passive voice, Useless. There’s no such thing as “expected”; there’s “I expect.” For example: I expect you to back up such claims with references to a person or organization with power or access to those in power saying that the FRA will adopt UIC standards.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:19 am
@James Fujita:
If Metrolink ever wants to expand or increase service, it will need to find a way to separate out from Cal HSR.
I suspect that Metrolink (and Caltrain) will eventually end up operating CAHSR-compatible trains (perhaps leased units) for its commuter service along the CAHSR shared corridors, and FRA sets elsewhere in their system, with no non-FRA/FRA shared operation for any distance.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:25 am
also @James Fujita:
The only real fundamental difference between the “Mini-Shinkansen” and regular Shinkansen is the track gauge. Somehow the “Mini-Shinkansen” trains can run on both types of track, but I’m not sure of the technology involved.
The Mini-Shinkansen corridors are previously narrow-gauge corridors which have been upgraded to support standard gauge track (sometimes with the narrow-gauge track still present and carrying local services). The Mini-shinkansen trains use the same standard gauge as Shinkansen trains, just built to the smaller loading gauge dictated by the requirements of the narrow gauge corridors. Minis running at slower speeds on (ex-)narrow gauge corridors due to curves and grade crossings, and at full speed on dedicated Shinkansen corridors.
Matthew Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Useless, you use a lot of words like “disqualified” and “banned” that don’t seem to be supported by an actual stance from any government entity. I think this would fall under the wikipedia category of “original research.” While this isn’t wikipedia and there isn’t a rule about that, it’s at least good etiquette to state when something is your opinion, or if there’s actually a citation to an existing decision. You’ve posted multiple times saying that Japanese and Chinese technologies couldn’t be applied in California, but that’s directly contradicted by memoranda of understanding that are publicly available: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Partnerships.aspx
I realize that memoranda of understanding serve a different official role from explicitly defining a potential business partnership, but it’s a step in that direction taken by the governments of California, China, and Japan. Where’s your evidence?
Useless Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 6:18 am
@ Matthew
> that don’t seem to be supported by an actual stance from any government entity.
It is a predictable outcome with an understanding of US laws and how CRH380A was put together.
Suppose you know there is a product made with prison labor in China, and you then can guess it will be banned in the US once that fact is known.
thatbruce Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Suppose you know there is a product made with prison labor in China, and you then can guess it will be banned in the US once that fact is known.
In a similar fashion to how vehicle license plates are banned in the US, being produced by prison labor?
Or perhaps how designer clothing is also banned in the US, since they’ve commonly been produced in (third world) sweat shops without proper renumeration?
RG Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Who said that Germany has no money?
Who do you think is bailing out the Greeks, Portugal, Ireland and the rest of the PIIGS?
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
@ RG
> Who said that Germany has no money?
Germans do not use state financing to export their product, while all of German rivals, including French, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese do, espeically when the project is worth tens of billions of dollars.
Victor Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Are You sure they have any left over? That’s a lot of help from One country.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
How bout russia do they have anything?
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Depends on how high the price of oil goes, but I think they are an HSR technology importer at this point in time.
I do think we should put a couple of those Thank You Billboards along the I-94 in Wisconsin though.
Alan Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Preferably at points where traffic tends to come to a dead stop during rush hours…
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
lol yeah! that would be so awesome.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
4 and 5 dollar gas this summer shoud do the trick for him!!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I love this idea.
Matthew Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I don’t feel the need to waste California money on a billboard to gloat over a bad decision made by the Wisconsin government. At best, that would just cause more resentment and division when what we really need is for Wisconsin representatives in the federal government to work with California and other states to ensure continued long-term funding for rail transit.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
IT could be a genuine thank you.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
No need.. his own people should be the ones goring him…it will be a couple of years before the real damage shows up with this stupid sideshow he put on..once the new trains and 110mph shows up out on Chicago to St Louis service then they will really boo his ass
J. Wong Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am
It woudn’t surprise me that Walker will be a one-term governor.
(which might have their final assembly here in California, but would be sourced from Chinese parts and funds paid to Chinese businesses)
And if it has Siemens on the nameplate or Alstom or Bombardier or Kawasaki or Rotem lots of the parts are still going to be made in China.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Kipling wrote:
“A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East”
PB Palmdale can run a pretty slick bait-and-switch but they are no match for these guys.
And as far as Japanese money is concerned, I suggest you keep on wishing, and hoping, and praying(as the song goes). Think about it; when was the last time some one or interest tried to buy into BART except maybe for some pols who planned to get payola’d by the unions down the road.
This thing will be dumped into Amtrak’s lap.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Have you considered asking the doctor to adjust your meds? Amtrak never has and probably never will build railroad cars. Nor will whoever operates HSR in California.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I think I should be more precise. The thing I am referring to is the whole CHSRA project which after PB has picked up the check and left the scene will run up such operating deficits as the state cannot absorb and at that point Amtrak will inherit the mess.
J. Wong Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Why will it run deficits?
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:34 am
‘cus its a train that runs at high speed, and every other train that Amtrak operates at higher speeds has always made an operating loss… oh, wait….
J. Wong Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I was being ironic. @synonymouse basic axiom is that anything government does cannot by definition operate at a profit.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Conrail did, then the free market zealots made the government sell it. What’s left of it probably sstill makes money.
Matthew Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I wonder if Synonymouse is just feeling lonely now that the PAMPA crowd has died out a bit on this blog and most comments are debating how to properly implement the project rather than how to kill it.
synonymouse Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Here are some reasons why the current CHSRA scheme will lose money.
The route is too circuitous and has too many stops. This can be helped by returning to Tejon even with retaining the 99 route in the Valley.
Labor costs will be too high with a government operation. To secure a private operator you will need the best profitability potential and that means the optimal route, not the retrograde loopy one so beloved by PB.
The mission has become confused and diluted. The hsr has devolved, thru gerrymandering and influence peddling and pandering, to a collection of regional mass transit operations. A patchwork of BART’s and all stone money losers.
This thing will be built due to the enormous, inexorable bureaucratic inertia so typical of government projects. Like BART to San Jose these juggernauts take on a life of their own. What is also inevitable is that the state will not have the means to subsidize it and it will have to be federalized. Freight railroads know that PB’s signature dumb mistakes, like non-standard gauge and voltage, the extra route miles of political detours, etc. etc., will all contribute to to red ink. These are the lines that in the real world of for-profit rr’s would end up abandoned, truncated, mothballed or spun off.
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“Labor costs will be too high with a government operation. To secure a private operator you will need the best profitability potential and that means the optimal route, not the retrograde loopy one so beloved by PB.”
This claim is bogus. To secure bids from a private operator, you require an expectation on the part of the private operator that it will have attractive profitability potential. No business turns down an attractive deal on the basis of “if this constraint was not in place, it would be even better”.
So even if the tenuous argument by assumption of the increased profitability of the risky Tejon Pass alignment were to be granted, the conclusion does not follow from that: several additional assumptions have to be ladled on top in order to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion.
We’re making a big mistake if we don’t design, engineer, and build our own trains for the American market. The American market really is different from the Chinese market. We have our own ways of doing things, and our costs of doing things like maintenance and customer service are different. Our people used to a high level of comfort and convenience, and won’t be easily enticed out of their cars. Something that works fine in China might fail spectacularly here, and take a lot of tax money with it.
Besides, we have lots of talented engineers and factory workers over here that could use the work. Building a 300 mph train isn’t rocket science. We can handle it. And after we do it once, we can do it again and again. The alternative is to be dependent on the Chinese to build and maintain our entire infrastructure, forever and ever. We’re already pretty pathetic in that regard.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I agree with you but no one else will.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I have to wonder, what is the big technological secret for HSR and the rolling stock on it? As I see it, the track boils down to a new, straight right-of-way, some form of positive train stop/cab signals/PTC (some variations of which were around as far back as the 1920s), very likely electification (main line electric railroad working goes back to 1893, modern AC operation on the New Haven to the 1910 era), a fairly heavy standard gauge track structure, and of course really good maintenance, even if it requires the road be shut down for a portion of the night. The equipment is best electrically operated, aerodynamically sleek to reduce wind resistance, as light as you can get away with (a Budd Company advertising plug in the 1930s), sufficiently powerful for the speeds required, is equiped for those cab sinals/train stop/PTC, and has a suspension tuned for fast running (basically using relatively soft springs, as found out by the Milwaukee Road’s chief engineer, Carl Nystrom, again in the 1930s), wheels designed for the stresses of such fast running, and an appropriate maintenance program to address the additional stresses the equipment is subject to at such speeds.
None of this is really rocket science, although some aspects of it cost a bit of money. Is it that hard to figure out the necessary track geometry,spring rates, and wheel metalurgy, which seem to me to be the only real technological differences between HSR and FRA rail?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
The Japanese intensely studied railroads world wide back in the 50s. Experts everywhere came up with “Steel wheels on Steel Rail will never go faster than 125″ even though it already had. The Japanese went out and built the Shinkansen. The French did the TGV back in the 70s. No need to go out and reinvent things, it’s all been hashed out.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“. . .it’s all been hashed out.”–Adirondacker
That’s essentially my point (and it also suggests why maglev may not be worth fooling with). It also makes me wonder what the big deal is about “licensed designs” in China, Japan, etc. Really, with the body of technical knowledge that is likely to be out there, particularly what would be available to professionals, what is there to prevent us from developing our own gear, and thus not being dependent on the Chinese or any others for this important technology of the future? Are we really as bad off as some third-world countries (actually colonies in that time period) in the late 19th century, when they didn’t have anything that could build a railroad and its equipment and supplies locally?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
what is there to prevent us from developing our own gear
Why would we want to? We’d end up with a design that had never been tested.
The phrase “accept no imitations or substitutions” comes to mind. Seriously!
Both Kawasaki and Siemens have factories in the United States. My personal preference is for Japan, but I may be slightly biased. I’m not the one making bid decisions :)
It’s no big secret that this started out as this.
MGimbel Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Don’t forget that it then turned into China’s super high-speed CRH380A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH380A
BruceMcF Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Completely different. One has a narrow blue stripe on the side, and the other has a whole splash of blue along the bottom.
China just steals tech from Japan, and improves it. Much like how Japan stole tech from Germany and the US in the 1950s, which stole tech from Britain in the 1800s, which stole tech from the Netherlands in the Tudor era.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I seem to remember in the 80s there was a big to do about japan stealing our tech secrets. But then we turned around and bought every tech item they as fat as they could make them. I also remember that at that time the big issues was a trade imbalance with japan, and that japan was going to own the US. Also at that time there was this idea to make california a free trade zone between japan and the us where we would use yen and dollars here – we’d be like this japanese us hybrid nation. or something. I don’t remember all the details exactly ( there was an abundance of mind altering substances available to us in those days)
James Fujita Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Japan stole American ingenuity and can-do spirit, which we weren’t using anyway.
jimsf Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
and still aren’t using apparently. WE can’t find it. We though maybe we left it under the sofa cushion but all we found was the remote, at which point we stopped looking.
Ted Crocker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:18 am
And what about Chinese quality – whether parts or complete units? Hopefully, China has practiced enough on themselves, but their “re-innovated” systems are so new, there is no track record for reliability (correct me if I’m wrong). Is this being discussed and/or considered, or is it, once again, just about the buy-in cost, not the long term cost?
Dan Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
I agree. There is nothing wrong with buying tech & trainsets from the Chinese. Regardless of whom we buy our trainsets from, there will undoubtably be a contract with standard Rep’s & Warranties which will state that the manufacturer (be it Chinese, japanese, German, or other) is responsible for any patent infringement lawsuits. With standard contract clauses, there need be no special risk here for California. I’ve never been fortunate enough (even when selling to the Chinese) to sign a contract without such terms….
//dan.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:20 am
It would be nice to buy tech from a bidder that didn’t come saddled with potential lawsuit fodder from the get-go.
I want to see this project get built as much as anybody else on this blog, but can we please consider ethics as well as a cheap offer nuts-and-bolts?
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:14 am
@ Dan
> There is nothing wrong with buying tech & trainsets from the Chinese.
Assuming said Chinese-made product is proven and legal, which is not the case here.
> there will undoubtably be a contract with standard Rep’s & Warranties which will state that the manufacturer (be it Chinese, japanese, German, or other) is responsible for any patent infringement lawsuits.
And what happens when CSR loses the inevitable lawsuit and is blocked from shipping CRH380A train sets to the US? Who’s gonna pay for the delay?
Dan Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
You are pre-supposing that Siemens is correct and the Chinese are lying. That has yet to be proven. If we choose the Japanese/Germans over a lesser-priced Chinese equivalent simply because we “think” the Chinese have stolen technology, then we are simply racists who buy overpriced trainsets. Chinese corporations are experts at extracting know-how from foreign companies and then cost-reducing & working around patents to create their own versions. This is not only legal, but in many cases ethical as well. I know nothing of the specifics of this case.
In a standard contract, the Chinese would pay for the delay with penalties if they could not export due to a lawsuit. More likely, export would be permitted and penalties would be paid by the Mfgr to the Patent owners.
BTW: It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the German/Japanese HSR patents were not filed (and therefor not enforcable) in the USA.
Useless Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 6:22 am
@ Dan
> You are pre-supposing that Siemens is correct and the Chinese are lying. That has yet to be proven.
And why would you believe in the other way?
> Chinese corporations are experts at extracting know-how from foreign companies and then cost-reducing & working around patents to create their own versions.
Which is not what CSR did in this case.
> BTW: It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the German/Japanese HSR patents were not filed (and therefor not enforcable) in the USA.
Intellectual property isn’t just the patent, but designs too.
James Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
The HSR industry is just beginning to learn what the Aerospace industry has been experiencing for going on 20 years. The Chinese government is actively and aggressively abusing intellectual property and non-disclosure and other types of agreements. They do not prosecute those the infringe on copywrites. There is no legal system support, on the contrary it appears the governmet is encouraging if not leading the direction such technology theft. Yes this is nothing new, technology theft has been going on for thousands of years, but usually the government does not act so aggressively unless in time of war. That implies the Chinese government is engaging in a type of economic warfare.
McDonnell Douglas agreed to co-produce the MD-80 in China. The B-1 line was shutting down an no-one wanted the stretch form tooing. McD had China agree to only use the tooling on the MD-80 line. No sooner than the crate landed on the dock and it was on a truck headed for a Chinese military jet factory. I also suspect one or two was diverted to a tooling factory where it was disassembled and copied. Today they make an exact copy of the MD-80 just like they copy the Japanese train technology. Russia is just as frustrated watching them make copies of the Russian military jets. I suspect they are bending skin panels using the B-1 tooling. Every tech document brougnt in for co-production, no matter the proprietary agreements is copied post-haste.
The country is lawless. This is not good in the long run. Do we want to reward such behavoir?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Yes, China ignores foreign copyright and patents, just like the US until the early 1900s. Maybe we should shut down all American book publishers – they got their start pirating British books.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:57 am
And if you continue down that path in history, you find that the European nations stole tech from the Chinese. The wheel turns, and the tech goes to and fro.
Matthew Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
The whole concept of intellectual property is relatively new. Until relatively recently, intellectual property was implemented entirely through “trade secrets” protected by individual proprietors or trade guilds with apprenticeship systems. The comparative flexibility of licensing leads to much more economic growth, opportunity, and agility. Back when Europe was first acquiring Chinese technology, it was difficult to define what “stealing technology” actually meant. Today, we have complex legal systems that define just that. As imperfect as patent law is, the information age wouldn’t be possible without these legal structures, and a large part of our current wellbeing is supported by these concepts.
i’d be a lot happier with using japanese funding and trainsets, to be honest, given their track record during earthquakes, and the noise issues that the CAHSR route is likely to be dealing with. additionally, those trains are seriously roomy, which will come in handy with our rather supersized populace.
best case scenario is a joint venture with tech transfer, IMO.
bleh Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
The Chinese use the Shinkansen loading gauge.
I agree with you on the noise issue but in terms of visual pollution the Chinese/European are clearly superior. I like the look of the Shinkansen trains, but god the aerials, catenary and stations (mostly) are ugly.
In post-war Germany as railway electrification gathered pace, the railways (ie, the government) were buying near identical locomotives and trains from different (ie, rival) manufacturers. By using tough specifications, the railways were able to ensure these trains were fully compatible and interoperable (to the point that many parts were interchangeable), and if one company had an especially clever or innovative patent, the railway would screw that company and make sure it could only actually use that innovation on the condition that it shared the patents and so the propducts of the other companies remained compatible. By sourcing near identical products from different suppliers, the railway could keep prices low and prevent any company capitalizing on special patents and leadership. At the same time it could keep close tabs on quality and if the product of any company was underperforming with regard to another, the railway could address that and there were no excuses. For the suppliers this was also a good arrangement as they had an assured minimum income and so reduced their risk and so could invest more in R&D which helped them grow their export markets.
Now if, rather than seeking a single suplier, California HSR would source trains from all of France, Germany, Spain, Japan, China, USA and anybody else who thinks they’re in the game, they could, if they’re smart play the same game to heir advantage. If the Germans and Japanese aren’t happy with the conditions, then they need not make an offer. Simple as that. I’m sure the desire to export will be stronger than the desire to go to court but not have any work.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:47 am
That would be great, except that California is looking private partner to chip in. The Private partner who have stepped up have been Chinese or Japanese, looking to use sell their own trains.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I like the concept myself, but I’m not certain that’s how things are done now.
It used to be that way, even for private railroads in the United States. Most steam locomotives were custom or semi-custom orders, with the locomotive builders bidding on the job; ditto for non-interchange stock, such as cabooses. Pennsylvania’s electrics from the classic era, including its GG-1s, were also in this category, with some being built by General Electric, others by the road’s own Altoona Shops, with electrical gear coming from both GE and Westinghouse. There were even options galore for common freight cars, including different doors, door locks, ends, hand brakes, and air brake equipment (two main manufacturers, Westinghouse Air Brake or WABCO, and New York Air Brake).
It was recognized that all this customization cost money, and the railroads eventually gravitated to standard equipment, with some options for doors or other smaller hardware. This started with the diesels offered by General Motors, whose managers and engineers knew something about mass production of standardized units; for a long time, the only options you could get on GM diesels were dynamic brakes, assorted gear ratios, train-heating equipment, and the paint scheme.
It’s ironic to note that Baldwin Locomotive Works, later Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton, which had two members of its ultimate combinatin (Baldwin and the famous Lima Locomotive Works and Machine Company) that were so successful in steam, would fail terribly in diesels, partially as a result of the company remaining committed to the custom-building principle. Baldwin and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton built some of the strangest diesels you ever saw, including some that were purchased by only one railroad. Some of the total production runs were for a dozen locomotives or less, sometimes spread over two or three orders. You don’t make money that way in the diesel world.
Baldwin “passenger Shark,” model DR-6-4-20, Pennsylvania Railroad class BP-20; doesn’t look too unusual other than its “Shark Nose” styling that gives it its name, but the Pennsylvania was the only road to buy them.
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/1/9/3219.1241286804.jpg
Baldwin model DRX-6-2000; custom ordered double-enders for the Central of New Jersey, all of six units, in two orders, with variations between them:
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/cnj2000.jpg
The Baldwin model DR-12-8-1500/2, nicknamed the “Centipede;” only three railroads bought them, the Pennsylvania, the Seaboard Air Line, and the National Railway of Mexico. The Pennsylvania had a unique variation in that their units were coupled back-to-back with drawbars instead of couplers, producing an incredibly long double-ended unit. Amazingly, with all that weight and all those traction motors, these units were intended for passenger service.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=181585
To those pointing out that US companies don’t invest in HSR because there is no domestic market: Bombardier is Canadian and makes passenger rolling stock for both convential and high-speed trains, depite the lack of a domestic market.
Personally, I think US companies rarely see non-US markets are being important to the, in part because the US market is (generally) so big.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Bombardier Transportation is based in Berlin. And they’ve kept pace with international markets over the past several decades, rather than allowing their technology to become obsolete.
Marcus Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:31 am
Yes, but their parent company is based in Montréal. It doesn’t really matter where they’re based anyway, it’s a giant multinational conglomerate. A Spanish train manufacturer, Talgo Inc, had opened a plant in Milwaukee in anticipation of the construction of the Wisconsin HSR line, but just closed it due to the canceling of the project.
Isaac Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:03 am
The Milwaukee plant is still up and running. They’re making 2 trainsets for the Chicago-Milwaukee line and another 2 for Oregon:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/111686184.html
The problem is if the Madison-Milwaukee extension would have been built, they had an option for 2 extra trainsets for Wisconsin. That, and demonizing rail passenger transport for the Governor-elect Scott Walker is what is making them to close in 2012.
RG Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Companies don’t invest in technologies where they don’t see a short term (or maybe medium term) return. The US high speed rail was not in the radar of the US until very recently, when California passed prop. 1a and when Obama tried to push it. However it’s clear that the country is not committed to it and the funding is not there. Even in California a lot of people are not convinced that it will ever become reality. I can see GE (or Boeing) investing in some existing European or Asian company that makes trains, but nothing more. I think it’s safer to stick to cars, trucks and planes. That is where America is going to be in the foreseeable future. Investment in these expensive enterprises with very little benefit for traffic congestion or energy consumption is a poor choice. The future is in alternative energy private transportation (electric and methane powered vehicles), not in trains. As I pointed out, buses should have a bigger role if only governments decided to designate more lanes to HOVs and started charging electronic tolls for the use of freeways.
Isaac Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
“The future is in alternative energy private transportation (electric and methane powered vehicles), not in trains.”
While I agree that electric and CNG vehicles are key for the future of transportation (CNG would be the emergency solution for the USA if peak oil gets ugly) trains and rail in general will have its part.
I don’t know many affordable cars and buses that can go at 220 mph. Not even planes can win a rece with them in mid-range distances (up to about 500 miles).
StevieB Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Electric vehicles do not have the range of interurban trains and are very expensive. Methane does not have near the energy of gasoline so refueling is frequent and there is no existing distribution system and setting one up would be very expensive. The same is true of liquid hydrogen and other alternative fuels. High speed rail is a valuable option for travel between cities that is needed for the continued prosperity of California.
Isaac Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Electric vehicles are expensive and range limited right now, but they could improve in the future in this 2 issues (metal-air batteries have potential to do it so). Anyway it’s not going to happen overnight.
CNG could be some range limited, but in general people don’t ask for a “full tank” anymore, but fill a quantity with money ($20, $30, i.e.). CNG is cheaper right now than gasoline, and the price of natural gas in the USA have not “rebounded” like the oil one.
http://www.cngprices.com/
And the price tag of the distribution system, yes it will cost billions, but keep in mind the USA spends 250-300 billion $ PER YEAR on oil imports at the prices today. So it looks like a nice deal.
Anyway, don’t take this as an attack on HSR or rail transportation in general. I’m 100% in favor of it, but it’s not a silver bullet for peak oil I’m afraid.
Best.
RG Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
High oil prices will not be a problem. Natural gas cars will be the future of America now that Chrysler and other US car makers are invested in it.
http://taintedgreen.com/green-cars/fiat-chrysler-ditch-hybrid-cars-in-favor-of-natural-gas/000854/kr-13
The distribution system will be built once those companies lobby the Government to do it. The future is private transportation with alternative energy not expensive public transportation. The only problem with private transportation is not high oil prices, but the traffic congestion during rush hour. However that can be solved with better local commuter transit (or telecommuting) not with HSR that helps road traffic very little.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
So your rationale is that high speed rail is far too expensive, but an even more expensive retrofitting of the American gasoline/diesel distribution system for natural gas, while still incurring high fuel prices and the eventuality of peak gas. Yeah, really great idea. Not.
Also, why are you complaining that HSR doesn’t help road traffic much? It isn’t intended to except in a few specific areas where it overlaps with extant commuter rail (such as Anaheim/Irvine to Los Angeles). The primary benefit in mode switch lies with air corridors (which are quite congested in CA). It does however greatly aid the commuter lines that it runs with via electrification and higher speeds and, if memory serves, will be subsidizing their operations with HSR profits.
thatbruce Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
There is already a natural gas distribution system for consumer vehicle use. There is not a methane gas distribution system for consumer vehicle use.
The only problem with private transportation is not high oil prices, but the traffic congestion during rush hour.
The equation is more akin to: subsidized oil prices == low price at the pump == more incentive to drive a private vehicle (cheaper) == congestion on the roads as more people see to drive (or as is frequently the case in rush hour, park) on the same-capacity roads.
Increase the price of oil (or reduce the subsidy), and you end up with less congestion (and more usage of shared-mode travel). Thus, the problem with private transportation is not high oil prices, but low oil prices.
However that can be solved with better local commuter transit (or telecommuting) not with HSR that helps road traffic very little.
CAHSR is a solution for long-distance travel. It will have beneficial follow-on effects, such as reducing the amount of long-distance road travel, but it, by itself, will have little effect on purely local road traffic.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Methane is no solution in the long run, most of its sources are fossil fuels, and we’re going to have to stop burning so many of them.
Electricity we can make with hydro and solar. :-)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Bombardier is based in Montreal. They make all sorts of stuff for the North American market. NJTransit is probably one of their biggest customers. AMT, the commuter agency in Montreal piggybacks on NJTransit orders. So Bombardier, based in Montreal makes the stuff the commuter agency in Montreal uses….
Here is a summary of what’s happening.
1. CRH380A is a combination of Shinkansen E2′s body with Siemens Velaro’s bogie.
2. CSR has a license to utilize Shinkansen E2′s technology within China. However, the license does not extend to outside of China.
3. Because of above license issues, CSR’s CRH380A is illegal outside of China. While it maybe difficult to enforce this in 3rd world countries, it will be enforced in the US and Europe.
4. Kawasaki was driven out of Chinese bullet train market and has nothing to lose by suing CSR in US courts, and already vowed to sue.
5. Siemens, the other party affected by CRH380A, is likely to remain silent because of Siemens’ ongoing business interests in China, and may let Kawasaki take care of CRH380A in the US.
6. Although CRH380A is banned in the US, CSR has one more option, Zefiro 380, which is a 50:50 joint venture between CSR and Bombardier. Zefiro 380 can be offered to the US if Bombardier agrees to it.
7. Bombardier doesn’t appear to have any intention of working with Chinese on US projects. Furthermore, Zefiro 380 was designed for Chinese market and need an extensive modification before it could be sold in the US, whereas Zefiro 300V for non-Chinese market is.
8. So the conclusion is that Chinese bullet trains won’t be showing up in the US. However, Chinese still have the option of bidding on railway construction only, and this can be used by Chinese government as a propaganda material within China that they are building US high speed railways. What Chinese want is the propaganda material to its own people, not profits.
Andy M. Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 8:16 am
The Chinese are not just about propaganda. The Chinese government is very long term. Getting their foot in the door of any project under favourable conditions is a springboard to bigger things in the future. Even if there is still scepticism today as far as HSR in the USA is concerned, it doesn’t take a genius to foresee that that situation will change over the next 20 to 40 years or so. Many of the abandoned projects wil be revived and new HSR projects will be initiated in parts of the country where it is still unimagineable today, and then the gaps will be filled in and bit by bit a network will emerge that will interconnect all the most important important parts of the country. Once mass manufacturing begins, the Chinese want to be part of that and even the smallest market presence today can help prepare for that and will help put the local organisations in place who can further that goal.
Will the Buy America rules be applied to CHSR? It’s already taking federal funds for building the track, but will that trigger those rules when the trains are finally purchased?
RG Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:29 am
How can you buy American if America doesn’t make High Speed trains? Maybe foreign made but assembled in America.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
A highly politically juiced (usually military-industrial) company sets up a shell operation to “partner” with the shifty backwards foreigners who design and make stuff.
The particular group of foreigners involved are chosen on the basis of political amenability and kickbacks and willingness to pander to the US domestic “enabling” enterprise, and is unrelated to expertise or quality. (Well, the correlation tends to be negative. Paging Ansaldo-Breda!)
The shell corporation proceeds to add 50 to 100% or more to what would be the import price of working manufactured goods by
* installing an entire layer of worthless local management to fill out the “domestic” company
* fuelling a race to the bottom where different municipalities/states are suckered into not only out-competing each other to offer no-tax facility siting, but also to buying and building out sites to the private corporations needs, and forkiong out huge piles of money to “create jobs” .. nearly all of which immediately flows out of the local economy and sinks without a trace into the parent company’s byzantine tax-sheltered and often off-shore structure.
* employing an army of grotesquely incompetent (they wouldn’t be working in the US if they were employable elsewhere, after all) local consultants to redesign and respecify for “unique American conditions”
* failing to deliver anywhere near on time or on budget, and positively thriving on ECOs, redesign, acceptance testing, re-redesign, etc. The longer this goes on the more profitable. The nominally “public” agency is completely over a barrel, throwing more and more good money after bad, because the project is too big to fail, and because, naturally all the eggs have been placed in one contractual basket. (Compare with Spain, where they started off buying off the shelf when they were a backward nation and today successfully continue to award multiple contracts to multiple vendors at all levels — design, civil, systems, rolling stock, etc — in order to avoid lock-in and vendor capture. Their costs of course are a fraction of ours. Coincidence? Hardly!)
* Employ a small cadre of local yokels to be paid to screw together the “American” trains. The wages involved are paltry compared to the overall contract cost, but this is pure political fig-leaf theatre. On-the-take (or just plain dim-witted) hard hat union rep types show up all the time to boost “good jobs for good American workers”, but the reality is that it is a shell game, with money being stolen from the taxes of honest American workers to pad the bottom line of dishonest “American” shell corporations.
* Because the redesigns (unique local conditions!) rolling stock is assembled by an unskilled workforce in a throw-together ad-hoc plant, and because “quality control” is something that only appears on Powerpoint slides, the delivered product will be vastly over-priced, delivered years late, fail to meet advertised contracted technical requirements, and be massively failure-prone for the first decade or more of service. (Mmmmm… more ECOs. More profit. Too big to fail!)
Nevertheless, this will be trumpeted as a triumph for unique American Know-How, as of course “these things happen” and one “should expect” “unexpected problems” with a “brand new” system. (See for example 90% of the contributors to this blog).
So, that’s how it works to Buy American.
Look at pretty much any transit bus or train in the country (almost uniformly relics from somewhere circa 1970, even when built today) — and at the budgets of the transit agencies — and you’ll see just how excellently it works for all concerned.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
@ Richard Mlynarik
Doesn’t apply in this case, since Kawasaki, Siemens, Rotem, Bombardier and Talgo all have US plants managed by themselves and these foreign train companies are primary contractors.
With the single exception of CSR putting GE as front man, that is.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Look at the Siemens recent bid for SMART DMU: 100% over how much similar equipment costs in their home country.
Manufacturing plants have huge fixed costs, so regardless of who “owns” it, there will be high per-unit cost given the tiny US market.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
That’s true for small orders, not large ones. New York City Transit just got a huge order of subway trains for $1.5 million per car; this was unusually low, but future orders will stick to $2.5 million, the same as in countries that buy off-the-shelf products. When the order is very large, as New York’s are and as CAHSR’s will be, the buyer has more flexibility about what special demands to make.
RG Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I like your comment. May I cut and paste it in other pro-HSR blogs?
Isaac Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
I’m not familiar with US infrastructure building practices but, if true, it looks like this is not just for rail, but for ALL kinds of infrastructure including “cost effective” roads and airports.
YesonHSR Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
you mean on your bosses.. the Reason/Cato “information” website
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Bear in mind, those cost overruns are exactly the same for road projects. Ask Richard about the Bay Bridge replacement and how much it cost, or ask me about the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
You know, if it weren’t for that damn “signature” span, the new Bay Bridge would probably be open already, and a lot less over-budget.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Ha! Greatest post ever!
I’ve been hoping Cali will just buy everything off-the-shelf from Japan but, I fear what you
write will be true Richard.
Eric M Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Chinese might get by this rule because of the partnership they are forming with GE.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:07 am
@ Eric M
> Chinese might get by this rule because of the partnership they are forming with GE.
Nope.
Eric M Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Explain?
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
It doesn’t matter who the prime contractor is, 70% of parts must be manufactured in the US.
Actually, the current federal stimulus funding requires 100% US sourcing, although we are not sure if this is feasible.
Eric M Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
If the CAHSRA partners with GE, GE inturns gets technology transfer from the Chinese, funding is funneled from China through GE and the HSRA is doing business with an American company: GE
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Eric M
> GE inturns gets technology transfer from the Chinese,
And GE is hit with a billion dollar lawsuit from Kawasaki for handling of stolen goods.
Nadia Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:35 am
From the Final Grant Agreement for $194 million with the Feds:
This is under the section: Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 Clauses Attachment 1A
Buy America
The Grantee shall comply with the Buy America provisions set forth in 49 U.S.C. 24405(a) with respect to the use of steel, iron, and manufactured goods produced in the US, subject to the conditions therein set forth.
Sorry – I have a copy on my computer – but not a web link.
I assume this is boiler plate and will thus apply to any more federal stimulus money received…
Eric M Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:36 am
And Siemens is already here in the US with a factory in Sacramento. So is Alstom, Talgo and most all manufactures. In this country, there are always loop-holes and ways around certain laws.
Happening now – for those of you who don’t get the tweets:
CaHSRA: CEO to address Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission this afternoon – LIVE WEBCAST available at http://www.publicinfrastructure.ca.gov #HSR
Where is a list of all the available existing high speed trainsets on the market today.
List them with pics then we can vote. Aren’t there really only 3 though?
TGV/AGV
Velaro
Japan
OF course I like the tgv, but I’d be willing to accept the one from japan if they 1) get rid of the that ugly front end, and 2) add a cafe car. That’s my offer.
Useless Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
@ jimsf
Alstom TGV/AGV
Siemens Velaro
Kawasaki/Hitachi Shinkansen series
Rotem KTX-II
Talgo 350
ETR 500
Bombardier Zefiro V300
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Isn’t the ETR 500 rather outdated compared to the other contenders on this list?
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
First round elimination. Unless you prefer jimsf’s HSR Gong Show approach to rail transit.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I have to go find pics of those others…
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Oh! This ONE! hey (that’s the same one amtrak shows on its NEC hsr plan) This one is hot.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
The train has conference rooms, VIP lounges, restaurant and bar. Each seat is equipped with sockets, Internet connection, the monitor that you can see trip details and adjustable air-conditioning system based on the number of passengers
hellz yeah. they nailed it.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Most of those amenities could be included in any trainset.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
but this one is brand new. the latest thing. and very fast according to the site
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
More likely, Rotem would bid with its under-development 400 km/h EMU.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Unless we have comparable statistics on the three, it’s just a fashion show.
And you’re the one with a cafe car fetish. Me, I’ll be waiting at my seat for the hot tea and bento cart XD
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I don’t want a bento box. japanese food is too small and cost 3 times as much for like 1/3rd the food. Unless that bento box has a bacon cheeseburger in it…..
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Sure. Let’s serve all-american fast food where you get double the tasteless processed subsidized corn derived crap for half the price.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
let me guess. You shop at the ferry building.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Not generally, no. But I have seen the ways that much of the food in this country is produced and I find it rather appalling.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Wait, the Ferry Building is supposed to be expensive? I got bread there for 2/3 the price I get at New York supermarkets. It was better, too.
jimsf Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 5:08 am
well of course its cheaper than new york but its way more than surrounding stores here. you’re comparing organic apples with organic oranges.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
You prefer French trains, but you’d rather eat bacon cheeseburgers? How gauche… at the very least I’d expect chardonnay and croissants…
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
okay well put the cheeseburger on a croissant then. and yeh, ketchup with the fries.
I want this train!!!!. I have to have this train. this is the one. My mind is made up.
zefiro train. is the right one.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Oh, is that food fight still going on? :-)
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
If I go anywhere here in the Riviera asking for a cheeseburger on a croissant, I’ll run the risk of getting lynched.
spokker Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Ballot measure 26: All HSR stations required to have a Famina.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I see nothing wrong with this.
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Don’t take my word for it, just watch this propa.. er… very informative dramatization and you will be convinced. ( you are getting veeeerry sleepy…. now repeat after me….. “zefiro the more attractive alternative” ^tm)
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
It’s AGV fever all over again!
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
its nice admit it. you like it. you want this one! ( the agv is nice too though… hmmm.)
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Yes, but has your train had a television drama series based on it?
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
well that is impressive but you see even the japanese folks didn’t want to eat the bento boxes. ( probably so tired of them) Now if she had stocked that cart with big macs, she’d a’ cleaned up!
I mean really, 8 grains of rice and a peice of seaweed for 14.50 isn’t gonna cut it in Fresno.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Odd, I see bento cart girls competing to see who can sell the tastiest bento boxes on the train; what video were you watching?
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
that girl wasn’t selling any bento boxes! wasn’t that the point of the movie? ( ididn’t watch the conclusion)
I’m sure the bento girls are very nice though but still. You know that won’t work here.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
You’re supposed to feel sorry for the girl because she wasn’t selling as many healthy and nutritious bento boxes as the top bento girl.
And she got stuck with a group of Japanese “soccer moms” who were more interested in watching Mt. Fuji than anything else.
And who says it won’t work here? :)
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
oh I did. She seems very nice and all. And being stuck on the train with the noisy kids and stuff. But if she had some mcnuggets or something she woulda sold them all! Im all for at seat cart service. But you are going to have to serve affordable american food on trains that run for the most part, up and down central california. You can get away some things such as napa greens, and other local produce, sandwiches, you will have to have pizza or you will have a riot on your hands. eggmcfuffins, breakfast burritos. etc. this is california. SO if you can serve those items from a cart fine. But one still wants a lounge to go to. How bout this. snack cart up and down the aisles, and an ultra lounge with sushi bar. Ill meet you half way.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I thought California prided itself in serving something other than shitty fast food…
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
a certain segment of the population, the hoity toits, who can afford it sure, but the rest of us eat pizza and burgers and burritos mostly just like everyone else.
Alex2000 Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Man, what a great video link. Thanks!
Boy, that really made me miss Japanese service. Especially on the Shinkansen and Airlines.
Always, ultra friendly, ultra polite, and usually a young attractive stewardess.
James Fujita Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Yeah, Japan definitely knows how to do good, polite service. You see it on trains, planes, and in department stores… customers get treated well, and the sales girls get steady employment and a decent pay check….
Off topic, but some items that might be useful for reference, including some comments about bridge design in the first link, courtesy of the US Army Corps of Engineers:
http://www.tpub.com/content/armytransportation/TI-850-02/index.htm
Comments about an aging population and rail service (Great Britain):
http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T661_rpt_final.pdf
Train travel and the internet, linked from Streetsblog:
http://urbanreviewstl.com/2010/12/travel-by-train-good-for-urban-centers/
Enjoy–but also have some aspirin for the technical stuff in the first two. . .:-)
jimsf Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
r. Indeed, it is now recognised that
one of the key drivers of international migration is the differential ageing of societies, as
high fertility countries, still with high numbers of young workers, send migrants to low
fertility countries with growing labour shortages
4
so it all comes down to fertility.
China should start working on their own HSR technology, not steal from Kawasaki and Siemens and sell it under their own brand.
The CRH380A is alot of technology to be proud of.
All companies will have to provide a product that is fast and cheap at the same time since we don’t have the federal government behind us.
Useless Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@ Emma
> China should start working on their own HSR technology
They are already closed to finishing 200 km/hr(130 mph) high speed train that is not a knock-off of western models.
How dependable of a partner would China be in the future? Suppose there is tension between the U.S. and China while the high speed train needs critical replacement parts. Would China all of a sudden delay replacement. They have shown with rare earth metals, they are not shy about throwing their economic advantage for political gains. Go with a democratic country where there is an actual legal recourse for recompensation. Tell the Chinese the truth: We don’t trust you.
Useless Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
@ MrTemecula
> Would China all of a sudden delay replacement.
No problem, you would go to Kawasaki and Siemens for original parts, not knock-off parts from China.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The US imports oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Why should it not import trains from China?
Spokker Reply:
December 17th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Because oil goes into our cars, silly.
MrTemecula Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Because the US can buy oil from Canada and Brazil and Norway, but I don’t know how hard or easy it is to make and buy replacement parts from non-original manufacturer. Democratic countries should support other democratic countries. Besides environmental concerns, I believe slowing down financial support to dictatorial oil nations or even China needs to be a goal. The Saudi use their oil money to buy-off extremist organisations who in turn fund terrorist groups.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 18th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
The US can’t buy oil from Canada and Brazil and Norway; they don’t export enough to satisfy all US demand. In contrast, if the US buys trains from China and China stonewalls, it will be very easy to switch to trains from another country. Taiwan did just that when it built HSR, switching from a French-German consortium to Japan in response to a corruption scandal.