daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 11th, 2010, 01:06 AM   #121
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,886
Likes (Received): 2463

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
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...
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 11th, 2010, 01:13 AM   #122
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
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????
Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 01:21 AM   #123
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,886
Likes (Received): 2463

That's not the debate here- I simply wanted to say that Korea copied too, and that was even not the main topic...
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 01:46 AM   #124
Ariel74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 414
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
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.
Ariel74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 03:27 AM   #125
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
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.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 03:55 AM   #126
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,886
Likes (Received): 2463

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
Not at all. Other countries ask China to play by same standard and that's all they would ask.
And they should.
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 04:22 AM   #127
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
What exactly happened to China Star?
China pulled the plug on China Star only after two years of service.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 04:42 AM   #128
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,886
Likes (Received): 2463

Okay, I'm glad you clarified, and I really can't see anything to dispute.
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 08:36 AM   #129
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
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.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 09:34 AM   #130
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
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.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 09:42 AM   #131
maldini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 766
Likes (Received): 75

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.

Last edited by maldini; October 11th, 2010 at 09:52 AM.
maldini no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 04:39 PM   #132
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxmulder View Post
Chinese are completely playing by the rules.
Whose rule? Chinese rule? Sure.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
Everyone doing business in China is happy. Ask Kawasaki, Siemens or Bombardier
Sure. http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51782020101002

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 06:53 PM   #133
greenlion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 374
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

Last edited by greenlion; October 11th, 2010 at 07:01 PM.
greenlion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 07:20 PM   #134
hkhui
Norway, China
 
hkhui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 128
Likes (Received): 7

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

Quote:
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.
hkhui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 08:46 PM   #135
wharton2010
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 21
Likes (Received): 22

hyper miller is a "prominent" troll on CRH threads, like Onn, who was a "prominent" troll on China skyscrapers.
wharton2010 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 09:51 PM   #136
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
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.
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 09:59 PM   #137
arriaca
BANNED
 
arriaca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,983
Likes (Received): 91

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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
arriaca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2010, 10:09 PM   #138
foxmulder
Registered User
 
foxmulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,135
Likes (Received): 381

sorry double post
foxmulder no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2010, 01:12 AM   #139
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkhui View Post
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.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2010, 01:49 AM   #140
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
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!
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
china

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium