CHINA | High Speed Trainsets

[gincan]

Originally Posted by K_

Looking at the interior I get the impression that all seats are orientated in the same direction. Do these seats rotate?

Revolving seats are industry standard today.

On another note I think they should have been more radical with the seat design, this is just the standard airplane seat which in my opinion is to bulky and oldfashion.

With a modern approach they could have used more lightweight seats offering more legroom and thus comfort. Instead they choose the visual approach which is an old and stupid idea that unless the seats look comfortable they will not attract travelers.

[aucina]

I have to say that the Maglev system excites me much more... the future should be in investing into that technology...

[Nozumi 300]

Originally Posted by greenlion

Zefiro 380 - CRH380C at The international trade fair for transport technology, Berlin, Germany, the CHinese MOR had orderd 80 CRH380C trains in 2009 and according to most recently news, the first set eill be ready by 2011.

Thanks to greenlion for posting.

[greenlion]

more pictures of Zefiro 380

[greenlion]

the fastest way to save the planet lol

[zergcerebrates]

Zefiro is nice!

[get400]

Originally Posted by greenlion

the fastest way to save the planet lol

yeah, ha ha ha! and its true!

[Simfan34]

While the Zefiro is a wonderful train, what is the point of it if they have the CRH380A? China strikes me (perhaps Spain as well) as the only country out there that uses multiple train systems versus say, the singular successive TGV and ICE versions. I can see the logic behind it, but I'm just wondering why.

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

While the Zefiro is a wonderful train, what is the point of it if they have the CRH380A?

To "obtain" tech from as many foreign train makers as possible.

China strikes me (perhaps Spain as well) as the only country out there that uses multiple train systems versus say, the singular successive TGV and ICE versions. I can see the logic behind it, but I'm just wondering why.

France and Germany have indigenous high speed rail technology, China and Spain don't and are foreign vendor reliant. You have a multi-vendor situation when you depend on foreigners for technology.

[foxmulder]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

While the Zefiro is a wonderful train, what is the point of it if they have the CRH380A? China strikes me (perhaps Spain as well) as the only country out there that uses multiple train systems versus say, the singular successive TGV and ICE versions. I can see the logic behind it, but I'm just wondering why.

You are forgetting an important one: Japan. Japan has many different bullet train types.

For the Chinese case, the market is just too big. Look at the numbers they order you will understand why they need more than one supplier.

[Luli Pop]

HM HST of bullshit doing the woodpecker again!

I suppose Rotem has indigenous technology.... ohhh yeahhh!

[Simfan34]

Originally Posted by foxmulder

You are forgetting an important one: Japan. Japan has many different bullet train types.

For the Chinese case, the market is just too big. Look at the numbers they order you will understand why they need more than one supplier.

I could have understood that in the beginning, to prevent a western company from gaining a monopoly but now that they're developing their own trains.

And I do agree Korea is almost as bad as China in the whole "tech-digestion" regards, but they tend to fly under the radar. Perhaps we expect more of the next superpower, and honestly I don't see the problem with that...

[Ariel74]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

I could have understood that in the beginning, to prevent a western company from gaining a monopoly but now that they're developing their own trains.

And I do agree Korea is almost as bad as China in the whole "tech-digestion" regards, but they tend to fly under the radar. Perhaps we expect more of the next superpower, and honestly I don't see the problem with that...

you need to learn your history better:

earlier:
Romans copied from the greeks; Japanese/Korea copied from China; China copied from India;

more recently:
Germany copied industrial production from England; America copied from Germany after the world war II; Japan copied from America in the sixties and onward.

It's not who's worse in copying...tell me who HASN'T copied????

[Simfan34]

That's not the debate here- I simply wanted to say that Korea copied too, and that was even not the main topic...

[Ariel74]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

That's not the debate here- I simply wanted to say that Korea copied too, and that was even not the main topic...

I am not engaging in "the debate". I am pointing out the very way you put things - "Korea is almost as bad as China in tech-digestion" - has false presuppositions. In fact, pretty much everyone "digests" and has "digested" everyone else. So it makes no sense to say who is "worse" or "as bad" in it as someone else.

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

I could have understood that in the beginning, to prevent a western company from gaining a monopoly

In the beginning, China tried to develop its own indigenous train but failed, exemplified by China Star. It is at this point when Chinese government decided to acquire foreign technology.

but now that they're developing their own trains.

China has yet to. Modified Shinkansens and Velaros don't count as "China's own". You can call them "Chinese modifications" but not "Chinese designs".

And I do agree Korea is almost as bad as China in the whole "tech-digestion" regards

It is the foreign company's earlier experiences in Korea and Taiwan that led to false expectations in China. Koreans did play by the terms of contract, and this is why the CEO of Alstom who called for a worldwide ban on Chinese train export citing IP infringement was silent on KTX-II. Sure, they were learning about foreign technology through these license productions, then they went onto design their own models from scratch, utilizing experiences from the license production and tech transfer. Why? Because all their products are designed to be exportable from the beginning and must withstand the highest standard IPR vetting process, since their own home market is not large enough to support these product. This is why only Korean bullet train models are UIC regulation compliant in Asia, as Shinkansen and CRH were not designed to be exported since their own home market was large enough.

Having had relatively positive experiences in Korea, these European industrial giants expected Chinese to play by the rule like Koreans did based on their ignorance of Asian cultures, and they would soon find out that they were dead wrong.

Perhaps we expect more of the next superpower

Not at all. Other countries ask China to play by same standard and that's all they would ask.

[Simfan34]

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

In the beginning, China tried to develop its own indigenous train but failed, exemplified by China Star. It is at this point when Chinese government decided to acquire foreign technology.

What exactly happened to China Star? I know they tried to make it, but they kind of just stopped without giving any reason. And the DJJ1, I believe it was called?

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

China has yet to. Modified Shinkansens and Velaros don't count as "China's own". You can call them "Chinese modifications" but not "Chinese designs".

CRH1, 2, 3, and 4. could be counted as Chinese modifications, but these new ones we are seeing, like the CRH380A, have been developed by China. While it is obvious China has absorbed foreign technology, and undoubtedly unfairly, you can't deny that trains like the Velaro 380 are still in development while the CRH380A are operating... hard to steal from someone while they're still inventing it.

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

It is the foreign company's earlier experiences in Korea and Taiwan that led to false expectations in China. Koreans did play by the terms of contract, and this is why the CEO of Alstom who called for a worldwide ban on Chinese train export citing IP infringement was silent on KTX-II. Sure, they were learning about foreign technology through these license productions, then they went onto design their own models from scratch, utilizing experiences from the license production and tech transfer. Why? Because all their products are designed to be exportable from the beginning and must withstand the highest standard IPR vetting process, since their own home market is not large enough to support these product. This is why only Korean bullet train models are UIC regulation compliant in Asia, as Shinkansen and CRH were not designed to be exported since their own home market was large enough.

Wait, I'm confused. If "Koreans did play by the terms of contract", why would Alstom be "silent on KTX-II"? You imply some kind of absorption as we see in China.
And the part about "Shinkansen and CRH" strikes me as wrong- Shinkansen was exported to China and Taiwan while CRH is looking like it's going to be exported to everyone and their brother.

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

Having had relatively positive experiences in Korea, these European industrial giants expected Chinese to play by the rule like Koreans did based on their ignorance of Asian cultures, and they would soon find out that they were dead wrong.

When you say "based on their ignorance of Asian cultures" you seem to imply Asian cultures are okay with this type of "digestion", yet they had "relatively positive experiences in Korea". You're confusing me here, unless you're trying to say they over-generalized.

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

Not at all. Other countries ask China to play by same standard and that's all they would ask.

And they should.

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

What exactly happened to China Star?

China pulled the plug on China Star only after two years of service.

know they tried to make it, but they kind of just stopped without giving any reason.

Too many technical problems that Chinese couldn't fix.

but these new ones we are seeing, like the CRH380A, have been developed by China.

CRH380A : Modified Shinkansen E2
CRH380B : Velaro with raised domestic content.
CRH380C : Bombardier design.

China has yet to produce an indigenous bullet train design.

and undoubtedly unfairly, you can't deny that trains like the Velaro 380 are still in development while the CRH380A are operating... hard to steal from someone while they're still inventing it.

CRH380B is basically a oversped Velaro. Velaro CN always had the ability to run at 395 km/hr. Chinese decided to tap into the built in safety margin of Velaro CN to claim this higher speed.

Wait, I'm confused. If "Koreans did play by the terms of contract", why would Alstom be "silent on KTX-II"? You imply some kind of absorption as we see in China.

Here is exactly what's happening.

Korea : Foreigners teach Koreans how to design a high speed train. Koreans then go onto design their own train from scratch, going through the normal development cycle(11 years in case of KTX-II). The resulting product is totally new and meets IPR standards of US and Euro markets.

China : Foreigners teach Chinese how to design a high speed train. Chinese take the supplied drawings provided for license production and utilize them beyond the agreed usage term to build CRH380A and CRH380B, where foreign licensor supplied content is replaced by Chinese clone parts. The resulting product infringes on Kawasaki and Siemens IPR and cannot be sold in markets where IPR protection is strong, such as the US and Euro markets.

When you say "based on their ignorance of Asian cultures" you seem to imply Asian cultures are okay with this type of "digestion"

Based on ignorance of Asian cultures, I meant that those foreign vendor executives expected Chinese to behave like Koreans and Taiwanese, that is to live up to the terms of license agreement and not misappropriate the supplied technology for purposes other than the license term.

yet they had "relatively positive experiences in Korea".

Alstom in this case expected Koreans to learn from them, then build their own stuff that doesn't contain TGV IP, which Korean did. Since this takes long time(It took Koreans 11 years to finish KTX-II), Alstom expected that they would have shifted over to AGV by the time Koreans enter the market with KTX-II. Two things that Alstom didn't anticipate happened.

1. Transition to AGV took longer than expected.
2. KTX-II turned out to be much more competitive than Alstom anticipated. Basically this is the ultimate TGV that Alstom never built.

But in case of Koreans, everything is done per agreed term, and Alstom is in awkward situation of having to compete against KTX-II with TGVs in the US and Brazil markets.

[Simfan34]

Okay, I'm glad you clarified, and I really can't see anything to dispute.

[foxmulder]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

What exactly happened to China Star? I know they tried to make it, but they kind of just stopped without giving any reason. And the DJJ1, I believe it was called?



CRH1, 2, 3, and 4. could be counted as Chinese modifications, but these new ones we are seeing, like the CRH380A, have been developed by China. While it is obvious China has absorbed foreign technology, and undoubtedly unfairly, you can't deny that trains like the Velaro 380 are still in development while the CRH380A are operating... hard to steal from someone while they're still inventing it.



Wait, I'm confused. If "Koreans did play by the terms of contract", why would Alstom be "silent on KTX-II"? You imply some kind of absorption as we see in China.
And the part about "Shinkansen and CRH" strikes me as wrong- Shinkansen was exported to China and Taiwan while CRH is looking like it's going to be exported to everyone and their brother.


When you say "based on their ignorance of Asian cultures" you seem to imply Asian cultures are okay with this type of "digestion", yet they had "relatively positive experiences in Korea". You're confusing me here, unless you're trying to say they over-generalized.



And they should.

Chinese are completely playing by the rules. Otherwise both Kawazaki and Siemens would have stopped cooperating with them. Everyone doing business in China is happy. Ask Kawasaki, Siemens or Bombardier, they are all making tones of money thanks to massive and cutting edge high speed rail network under construction in China. 5 years ago they could have not even dreamed such orders. It is only some sour grapes who are jeaolous or lose their chance to enter the market (alstom and some wierd people around called sinophobics) cannot digest this.

And at the end it is only expected that China will lead high speed technology from now on: they have the infrastructure, technology, will and money.