CHINA | High Speed Trainsets

[K_]

Originally Posted by foxmulder

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.

We will see if this is indeed what happens, but I don't see why this scenario should be a worrying one, as some people seem to imply. A world with a prosperous, advanced China in it will be a better one.

[maldini]

The Koreans bragged about their copycat French trains and tried to bash the newer and better indigenous Chinese designs, because of sour grapes reasons. Everything that the Chinese did is within intellectual property rights.

Korea has yet to produce an indigenous bullet train design.

The Chinese can now sell their own indigenous designs anywhere in the world. The Japanese and Germans have no complain about the new indigenous Chinese designs.

But the Korean nationalists have this inferiority complex and fear of losing potential market share to the Chinese, then frantically bashed the Chinese indigenous design, thereby embarrassing the Koreans themselves.

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by foxmulder

Chinese are completely playing by the rules.

Whose rule? Chinese rule? Sure.

Otherwise both Kawazaki and Siemens would have stopped cooperating with them.

Did Kawasaki and Siemens cooperate on CRH380 series? Why are their names not listed while Bombardier is clearly listed as the developer of CRH380C?

Everyone doing business in China is happy. Ask Kawasaki, Siemens or Bombardier

Sure. http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51782020101002

Feelings are running so high that the heads of German industrial giants Siemens and BASF publicly complained about an uneven playing field in China in the presence of Premier Wen Jiabao back in July.

General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt made similar comments in private that found their way into the press.

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.

Actually Alstom turned down China's request to sell them AGV, citing piracy concerns.

[greenlion]

Did Kawasaki and Siemens cooperate on CRH380 series? Why are their names not listed while Bombardier is clearly listed as the developer of CRH380C?

according to financial times report on october 8,2010, which had posted by other members earlier, CSR nologer co-operate with Kawasaki on HSR technology

http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001034854/en?page=1

Luo Bin, vice-chief engineer at CSR Sifang’s Technology Development Centre, explains that his company is no longer co-operating with KHI, from which it bought the original technology for trains able to travel at up to 200km/h. “This is an innovative design based on the technology we had already digested,” Mr Luo says, gesturing at the sleek new machine sitting on the test tracks. “This is completely the result of our autonomous design. It’s got nothing to do with Bombardier or Siemens. It’s got nothing at all to do with Shinkansen.”

and Bombardier is a different story, because the BST company that manufacturer CRH1 series and CRH380C series is actually a Chinese-Canadian Equity Joint Ventures, with Bombardier and CSR each holds 50% of the shares. Zefiro 250 and Zefiro 380 are actually special design for China

[hkhui]

This was FT's response to the men in your article, HyperMiler.

Wen calls bluff of moaning multinationals
By Geoff Dyer in Beijing
Published: July 20 2010 18:09 | Last updated: July 20 2010 18:09

Beware the wrath of a corporate titan scorned. A year ago, the bosses of the world’s largest companies oozed with praise for China’s handling of the global crisis. “Man, these guys are good,” Jeff Immelt, head of GE, told an audience at West Point.

Maybe it is the summer weather, but when the subject of Beijing comes up these days, multinationals seem to get hot under the collar. Mr Immelt confessed at a dinner in Rome earlier this month: “I am not sure that in the end they want any of us to win, or any of us to be successful.”

At the weekend, Jürgen Hambrecht, chief executive of German chemicals group BASF, and another corporate leader who has assiduously courted China, told Wen Jiabao, premier, that Beijing’s current approach to foreign companies “does not exactly correspond to our views of a partnership”.

According to reporters present, the exchange was so sharp that Mr Wen asked his German visitor to “calm down”.

Clearly, something has changed for many multinationals in China, even if there are few obvious new policies to explain the shift. In the technology sector, Beijing wants to use new “encryption” rules to get companies to hand over core software, while foreign companies are also hit by its public procurement policies and weak protection of intellectual property.

Some multinationals say they are getting a rougher ride from Chinese bureaucrats, despite all the hours spent courting them at banquets or making painfully polite speeches. Others complain that while their business is expanding, it is well short of expectations or the growth in their market.

Chinese companies are also getting better, fast. Although few are close to building international consumer brands, many Chinese groups are winning global success in markets for, say, power equipment, or machine tools or locomotives. It is no surprise complaints are coming from industrial groups such as GE and Siemens.

And in truth, China has always been a difficult place for foreign companies – and for local private businesses. The difference is that China is no longer a project for the future: it is so central to the prospects of many multinationals that routine difficulties and frustrations are top of the in-tray of the companies’ senior executives.

For all the obstacles, however, it is hard for multinationals to act too surprised. As Mr Immelt told his audience at West Point last year, China’s leaders “do exactly what they say they will do”. And one of the clearest objectives for the past three decades has been to leverage access to its vast market into technology transfers by foreign companies.

Nor is this some dastardly Chinese plan. Plenty of other nations have used a mixture of subsidies, tariffs and technology policies to try to kick-start their industrialisation including Japan, South Korea and – whisper this softly! – Germany and the US.

Ultimately, multinationals have only one real source of leverage – their investments. Foreign factories have played a key role in boosting Chinese productivity, bringing not only technology, but also skills, management techniques and international best practices. All the things, indeed, that China still needs to keep modernising its economy.

Beijing hopes it can have it both ways, using policy to boost its own companies while receiving new foreign factories. At a now infamous meeting last year in Brussels, Wang Qishan, vice-premier, dismissed complaints from a group of European executives. “You are going to invest there anyway,” he said. And he was right. Even with the crisis, foreign direct investment to China jumped 19.6 per cent in the first half of this year. China is essential to many industries, either because of the depth of its supplier networks or the size of its market.

However, there are also plenty of companies that have realistic alternatives for new facilities. And if Beijing saw that foreign investment really was dropping off, the bureaucracy would be very worried. Multinationals have a choice, therefore. They can complain as loud as they like about Chinese industrial policies, but if they continue to behave as if there is no alternative, Beijing will keep calling their bluff.

[wharton2010]

hyper miller is a "prominent" troll on CRH threads, like Onn, who was a "prominent" troll on China skyscrapers.

[foxmulder]

Originally Posted by K_

We will see if this is indeed what happens, but I don't see why this scenario should be a worrying one, as some people seem to imply. A world with a prosperous, advanced China in it will be a better one.

And great scenery for railway fans. Thanks to China, people in developing countries will have access to high speed rail comfort, too, in my opinion.

[arriaca]

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

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


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.

You can learn somethings about Spanish trains in this thread http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1105817

Spanish High Speed Trains

By Talgo

Talgo Avril

Renfe S 112

Renfe S 102

Renfe S 130

By CAF

Oaris

Renfe S 120 / Turkish HST

[foxmulder]

sorry double post

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by hkhui

Plenty of other nations have used a mixture of subsidies, tariffs and technology policies to try to kick-start their industrialisation including Japan, South Korea and – whisper this softly! – Germany and the US.

The difference is that Japan, Korea, Germany and the US industrial policies do not include willful theft and misappropriation of foreign intellectual property.

These countries are happy to learn from others, but what they sell is their own intellectual property that would withstand legal challenges in the US and European courts. China is a different story, where it is the state that is involved in engineering knock offs that include not only bullet trains, but fighter jets and spaceships too.

Heck, Chinese would even produce a knock off UFO if one crashlanded somewhere in China.

[Luli Pop]

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

The difference is that Japan, Korea, Germany and the US industrial policies do not include willful theft and misappropriation of foreign intellectual property.

Heck, Chinese would even produce a knock off UFO if one crashlanded somewhere in China.

yeahh!
remember the US just kidnapped German cientists...

regarding the China made UFO, point me in the waiting list!
I want an affordable high tech UFO also!

[HyperMiler]

Originally Posted by arriaca

You can learn somethings about Spanish trains in this thread

Spain doesn't have a completely indigenous train model. Talgo is a coach car manufacturer, with the locomotive provided by Bombardier.

Ditto for CAF, who works with Alstom.

Since Spain doesn't have an indigenous high speed train technology, they ended up using foreign technology of different origins.

[maldini]

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

The difference is that Japan, Korea, Germany and the US industrial policies do not include willful theft and misappropriation of foreign intellectual property.

These countries are happy to learn from others, but what they sell is their own intellectual property that would withstand legal challenges in the US and European courts. China is a different story, where it is the state that is involved in engineering knock offs that include not only bullet trains, but fighter jets and spaceships too.

Heck, Chinese would even produce a knock off UFO if one crashlanded somewhere in China.

The Koreans have been stealing Chinese technology and culture and then claimed them as their own, since the ancient times.
All the countries were willing to work with China on highspeed railway and they do not have any complaint about the new indigenous Chinese highspeed railway tehnology. The Koreans have yet to produce their own indigenous highspeed trains. It is not surprising that the Koreans are now trying to steal Chinese highspeed train technologies, after failing to steal them from the French and the Japanese.

[philip]

Zefiro 380 is sooooo sexy!!!! I hope they will find a more elegant way to put the logo "和谐号" on the front.

[arriaca]

Originally Posted by HyperMiler

Spain doesn't have a completely indigenous train model. Talgo is a coach car manufacturer, with the locomotive provided by Bombardier.

Ditto for CAF, who works with Alstom.

Since Spain doesn't have an indigenous high speed train technology, they ended up using foreign technology of different origins.

Talgo built the complete train. Some components like motors are designed by Adtranz (S 130, S 112 and S 102), but the new Avril are 100 % Spanish design.
The same applies to CAF.

[riles28]

I found this on a one website, i don't know if this train are existing or a design only for future use, can anyone explain about this train a what happen to this design.

[Luli Pop]

Originally Posted by maldini

The Koreans have been stealing Chinese technology and culture and then claimed them as their own, since the ancient times.

The Koreans have yet to produce their own indigenous highspeed trains. It is not surprising that the Koreans are now trying to steal Chinese highspeed train technologies, after failing to steal them from the French and the Japanese.

+1

I´d add they have yet to produce an indigenous culture too!

[greenlion]

Originally Posted by riles28

I found this on a one website, i don't know if this train are existing or a design only for future use, can anyone explain about this train a what happen to this design.

this is the planned CRH4 EMU300 which is the upgrade version of China Star, built by CSR Sifang factory, the sample car was completed in 2008, but no further news since then, the CRH4 was designed to run at top speed of 350km/h, rumor says the MOR had cut off the project so that CSR may focus on the development of CRH380A




here are the initial plan for the CRH train project made by MOR in 2007


CRH1 - BSP, based on Bombardier Regina
CRH2 - CSR Sifang, based on Kawasaki E2-1000
CRH3 - CNR Tangshan & CNR Changchun, based on Siemens ICE3
CRH4 - CSR Sifang, based on former CRH2 (China Star)
CRH5 - CNR Changchun, based on Alstom SM3

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by maldini

The Koreans have been stealing Chinese technology and culture and then claimed them as their own, since the ancient times.

As far as I know, they have not. They have been learning it and acknowledging it to be learned - it is only quite recently they have started claiming it as their own.

[foxmulder]

Let's stop talking off-topic guys..