China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe 691
MikeChino sends in this excerpt from Inhabitat: "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world, and soon that network will be connected all the way to Europe and the UK. With initial negotiations and surveys already complete, China is now making plans to connect its HSR line through 17 other countries in Asia and Eastern Europe in order to connect to the existing infrastructure in the EU. Additional rail lines will also be built into South East Asia as well as Russia, in what will likely become the largest infrastructure project in history." They hope to get it done within 10 years, with China providing the financing in exchange for raw materials, in some cases.
A high speed railway (Score:5, Insightful)
Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Insightful)
More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace. It's not the lovey-dovey ideal peace, but it's something.
The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.
Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.
...not a fair analogy because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.
Saudi Arabia has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Saudis are actually wealthy.
So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.
Re:...not a fair analogy because... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because Saudi Arabia is an Oasis of secular humanism now. The very model of a modern enlightenment.
Saudi Arabia has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Saudis are actually wealthy.
So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.
That is actually not true. The Gini coefficient (measure of economic in-equality, lower is more equal) is approximately 32 for Saudi Arabia and 40.8 for the USA. So it seems like your theory about economic equality and enlightenment is down the drain.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some are, but a great number are not. They live in crummy little two-room cinder block houses in hideously depressing desert-edge towns. And in a society where productivity is anathema, a massive number depend on government largesse which further erodes their sense of participation in the economy.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Informative)
Although, the US came to mind first when I saw "meddling, war and neocolonialism"... Looking just at Latin America for only the last 30 years, you get:
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Interesting)
More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability.
No, you didn't read the article, did you? This isn't about trade. China is accepting raw materials from your country in exchange for being hooked up to this rail service. Consider it a giant straw through which China will suck up Asia and Europe's raw materials. China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods. Goodness knows they have the manpower.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that not trade? Currency is a handy intermediary for trade, but it's not always necessary.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Informative)
China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.
Uh... where I come from, that is called trade. Trading doesn't only mean exchanging cash - goods for services is a perfectly valid form of trade, and one practised for many years before the advent of exchangeable currency markets.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.
I wonder if China in some way tries to avoid money and its consequences, in order to gain independence from unstable currencies...
Wouldn’t be a dumb move...
Europe's raw resources? (Score:3, Informative)
Telecom cables, too (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a number of proposals for doing telecom cables along rail lines across Asia, providing shorter alternatives to the undersea cables. They often get into trouble with either financing or right-of-way across South-West Asia, but if they're building a new railroad, it's easy to add conduits full of fiber at the same time. Earthquakes, landslides, and train wrecks do create risks, but shorter distance really helps latency, and it's usually a lot easier to patch fiber around a section of railroa
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Insightful)
More trade, which then possibly leads to more stability. History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations. It's the only reasonable hope we humans have to world peace.
I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941? You may have heard of that country's leader. He's invoked here a lot on Slashdot.
This is just another variant of the "prosperity = peace" argument. While the two often go together, one does not ensure the other. Most of the prosperous nations in the history of man have been so while invading their neighbors, or even across the other side of the world. We had this same prediction 20 years ago... the increased trade with China would make it a free country and bring political liberalism. How'd that work out?
I'm all for expanded trade and opening more markets. But that just brings wealth, not freedom, and certainly not utopia.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
Which, if you think about it, is the same situation everybody else is in, too. It is the most obvious way in which capitalism, like every other system, has failed us: There's very obviously more to do than we have time for, yet we still have significant unemployment and waste an incredible amount of time on completely banal entertainment. The people who control the resources are so unimaginative that they prefer to waste human productivity instead of working on ways we can move forward as a society. On the other hand, military spending, the global version of throwing in windows to boost the economy, is up. The rich work on getting more power, but they never do anything with that power, except using it to get more.
supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)
capitalism requires that there be supply and demand. The value of sometthing is related to both. If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls to zero. This means that for capitalism to function, the demand *must* exceed the supply.
This means you must never build enough houses. You must never grow enough food. You must never make enough clothes, cars, whatever(wealth). This also means there *must* always be poor there *must* always be starving *must* always be unemployment to ensure demand.
We have just seen an example of the supply exceeding demand. It is called a crash. The supply of houses exceeded the demand for them and now, they're literally knocking them down in order to reduce the supply and increase the value of the ones remaining. It's an insane situation.
This is something Silvio Gesell pointed out around 100 years ago. In order to change this, the nature of money itself must be changed.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Interesting)
The other bonus, globally, is that this is going to halve the cost of high speed rail (if you buy Chinese) for the rest of the world. China is already #1 in green energy production technology (and particularly! capacity) and just catapulted themselves to #1 in high speed rail technology, and they'll soon have more (2x) experience building high speed rail than all other countries and companies combined.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, Japan attacked the USA in WW2 for stopping oil exports.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
Last I checked, Japan attacked the USA in WW2 for stopping oil exports.
AND for cutting off the supply of scrap. Ironic that some of the weapons American forces faced in the Pacific were made from steel imported from the United States. I think of that often when I contemplate all of the money and technology we're sending to China.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Informative)
No, he's right. I'm sorry your shitty American textbooks don't express the reality of your situation, but that's no excuse for you to be ignorant of history.
Before Pearl Harbor, Japan had invaded China, Mongolia and parts of the USSR. Japan, having no natural resources of their own yet requiring them for its military action, needed to acquire them from other nations. The Japanese ended up seizing French Indochina (Vietnam today), causing several major Western nations to freeze Japan's assets, and put an embargo on oil shipments to Japan.
The Japanese didn't respond well to this, seeing it as basically a declaration of war, and attacked Thailand and other southeast Asian nations, as well as Pearl Harbor. So he's right, the US was attacked because of the stopped providing the Japanese with oil.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Funny)
Well, for one thing, I don't see how they're going to connect the Chinese railways with the European ones.
I heard that the Chinese rails go side-to-side instead of up and down.
Yep, that's what I heard.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Funny)
Hundreds of millions of Wal-Mart shoppers can't be wrong.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Interesting)
putting hateful words in the mouths of others is something only an asshole would do.
it takes two (Score:4, Informative)
china makes shit that everyone else in the world buys by the ton, likely because the rest of the world is incapable of making the same shit themselves for similar cost, and china would like to see it shipped to end customers faster.
The rest of the world is "incapable of making the same shit for similar cost" because the rest of the world has gotten accustomed to cushy social and medical services, as well to a fairly clean environment. So, instead of living with less security and destroying their own environments, Europe and America have the work done in China. I have no idea whether this is good or bad in the long run (and neither does anybody else). But it's happening because both Western and Chinese politicians want it to happen. The US and Europe could stop this in an instant if they wanted to, no matter what China says or wants.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Insightful)
unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/
As cold as it may sound, while I don't like their environmental policies as I see it having a negative impact on the world, I don't see any impact when it comes down to their unsafe workplaces or their use labor force. As far as a species goes, there are far too many of us on this planet as is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if people get to the point where they want to run themselves into the ground and perhaps put a small dent in the incredible population boom, I certainly won't stop them.
It's one of those funny things. I give to charity for example, which would pretty much put me at odds with my own thoughts that there are WAY too many of us here, yet it's simply so true.
The rate that we are chewing through resources and the way that we treat the other species (Eg, Oh, look
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's such a good idea, you go first. No, actually, if culling is so humane, I'd like to see you do it with your bare hands.
I'm sorry to inform you that you appear to be an extremist lunatic. It's OK, I once had some similar opinions about population control, and about "engineering-style" solutions to geopolitical problems.
When I realised that I wouldn't be able to bring myself to actually implement those ideas myself, but rather prefer to stand at the side cheering "Way to go, guys!" I realised I was an opinionated coward.
So, before you go publicly recommending death, starvation and natural disasters on hundreds of thousands of people, you may want to go stand in front of a mirror and repeat "Who the fuck do I think I am?". Don't take this personally, I am frightened of the short step between "this would be a great solution" and "Yes, Sir, we'll get right on it".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/
"But there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there; Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72, well done indeed! And the reason we let them get away with it is because they killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. “Ah, help yourself,” you know? “We'v
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everyone in China is subject to the one-child policy. It's a little over a third, IIRC. It depends where you live, for example.
It's also important to remember that international trade is about exchange - you can't just compare prices. When you say 'cheap' what you mean is 'The Chinese economy will give us lots of their stuff in exchange for relatively little of our stuff'. Then you need to add 'The Chinese economy is also giving us lots of their stuff in exchange for a promise of some of our stuff in the future, a promise which the Chinese have so far been refusing to call in'. ie, they are lending to us.
If you want to think in terms of pricing you have to consider exchange rates too. There's no need for general deflation in the US for 'lots of stuff in exchange for a little stuff' to become 'quite a bit of stuff in exchange for less stuff', all that must happen is for the (real) exchange rate to change. Most especially, they need to stop lending so much and we need to stop borrowing so much.
Remember: long term, we can't import stuff from China if we don't export stuff in return. No-one can borrow (or sell assets) for ever (and it'd be immoral to live off the unrewarded labour of a relatively poor country anyway). There will be no means to pay for the imports if we don't export. The more we import, the more must be exported. The presence of trade like that can devastate particular industries in the relatively disadvantaged country, but in the end all that demand sooner or later has to pop up as demand for your country's exports. China must stop manipulating its exchange rate and let that happen.
China's economy won't be able to produce as much output per person as western economies for as long as, for example, there is state control over banking. Want to start a business? Joining the party and knowing the right people is as important as having a sane business idea. China will still reduce western living standards, though. They won't do it by undercutting labour and throwing western workers our of work. They'll do it by being able to compete with us on international raw materials markets. Suddenly, the west are not the only people able to hand cars, electronics, or whatever to oil or mineral producing countries....we'll have to start handing over more of our stuff in exchange for the same oil or minerals, and more of those materials will go to China for their own consumption. The most important thing for the west (and the whole world) to do is to use those resources more efficiently, and to search for alternative energy sources.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like ipods, and macbooks, and things like that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all the countries suited for High Speed rail, the USA should be one of them. You guys have the land and capabilities. You guys should be showing us (europeans) how to do it, not the other way round. And no, it doesnt have to be all 200mph trains to make a huge difference.
Lets take my country, poor old battered UK, with aging victorian infrastructure that is heavily critisised, in my opinion, rather unfairly.
We have "local" lines running at 50/70mph. Sub-Main lines running at 100mph, Main lines running at 125mph, and now the High Speed 1 line running at 183mph.
Even with this motley selection of lines, we find Train can often be faster than car. Remember our highest speed roads (the motoways) are max 70mph, and suffer from traffic jams. Even the 100mph lines are faster, and even when you take into account stations, they can still be faster than a motoway at 70mph especially during heavy traffic when at times the average speed can drop to less than 30mph.
Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18, MUCH cheaper than car (fuel/parking costs, etc). And we were toally relaxed and enjoyed the trip, enjoying alcohol/etc.
The best part is when we travel parrallel to a motoway, and we roll past all the drivers in their jams. Even when there is light traffic, the 100mph trains easily roll past cars going at 70mph (30mph relative speed)
Its even more pronouced going on the Eurostar to paris at 180mph, its crazy when the train runs parrallel to a motoway. The cars, going at 70mph look like they are at a standstill (the train is travelling 110mph faster than the car, over twice the speed).
Dont get me wrong, I do own a car, a BMW, which is nice to drive, etc. But sometimes you just cannot beat the train for sheer comfort.
The USA could be BETTER than us for railways, as you guys have land, etc.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:5, Informative)
The sad part is that very few cities in this country have any infrastructure to support you once you arrive via train. Everything around here is built with the car in mind. Add in a sad mentality that public transport is for 'poor people' and there is little chance of any options being successful financially.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really good point you have made. Its strange that 'Class' can still exist in peoples mentality.
Here in the UK, you will see suits, and the unwashed mass sharing the same carraige in the London Underground. its often called the great "class equaliser". And its pretty much accepted.
Indeed, many "suits" prefer public transport, as they can whip out their laptops and do some work.
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Informative)
Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18
You didn't go "From Soho down to Brighton, did you?" 8-)
Compare a similar trip from Washington DC, to Fredericksburg, VA on the US's only train - amtrak.com. Google maps says it's 52.5 miles and 1:06.
Amtrak wants a minimum of $88 (58 GBP) for two adult round trip tickets. The outbound leg takes a minimum of 1:05, and the return trip takes a minimum of 1:15.
I can drive that same route (105 miles) for a tenth of that, and arrive at the same time as the train.
Additionally, this schedule [amtrak.com] shows a minimum of 4 stops each way.
And non-US citizens still wonder why we don't just take the train???
Re:A high speed railway (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldnt you take a train if it was competitive to car?
It depends on the destination, truthfully. If I were to go to Washington, DC or NYC, for instance, I would certainly take the train preferentially over driving, since parking is virtually unobtainable.
Going anywhere that's not set up for public transportation (my own city, Richmond, VA, for instance) would be foolish - you'd be able to stand around the station or maybe take a cab to a sightseeing spot or two, but without subways or other intra-city transportation, you'd be stranded.
In my particular case, Richmond's main train station is 8.4 miles/13 min [google.com] from 'downtown', and a cab ride would be $20-$25 [wikitravel.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about taking trains abroad, it's about traveling (on any mode of land-based transport) in dangerous cesspool countries like Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Two of those are warzones, and part of Pakistan is also a warzone.
Only an idiot makes fun of people who are afraid to journey into a war zone.
That is just really cool. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That is just really cool. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.
From my read of the article this rail will be primarily used for manufacturing materials. The main goal is to make it easier for import/export to/from China not to make traveling easier.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, it's about time Eurasia got its own Transcontinental Railroad. Second of all,
Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.
From my read of the article this rail will be primarily used for manufacturing materials.
I, for one, would absolutely love to take that trip. Especially if I could make stops along the way and catch the train again the day after next.
Re:That is just really cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe
Maybe not today, but in 30 or 40 years when dwindling oil makes the cost of air travel unsustainable? Absolutely people will be willing to take a fast train. Wouldn't surprise me if, in 100 years, there's a train over the Bering Straight linking Asia with North America. These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.
Ah, that old chestnut again (Score:5, Insightful)
These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.
Rubbish. China is one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries. They're human, fallible as anyone else. They have no more wisdom, insight, or patience than any of their competitors. Looking at their industrial pollution situation, and the race to catch up to the West, they may well have less. They slaughtered and starved hundreds of thousands of their own people... perhaps millions, considering their great famines... in their "Great Leap Forward". The Chinese are not any more wise or farsighted than anyone else. What they are, right now, is driven.
Chinese age is a fiction (Score:3, Interesting)
China is one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, and yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries.
China likes to present and view itself that way but that's a fiction, starting with the notion that something like a continuous Chinese civilization has even existed over the past two millennia. Generally, the societies and civilizations that have existed in the area of modern China have been significantly behind Europe and far behind the Middle Eastern civilizations
Re:Chinese age is a fiction (Score:4, Informative)
wait wait wait. lets analyse your facts here. while it can be said that china as a unified society might not be as old as some people think, we can look back at recorded history to see what we know.
Modern Chinese society is based on the Qin culture which dates back to at least 9th century BC. While this is not terribly old, the unification under the Qin emperor in 221BC wiped out all of the other cultures of the Chinese people which dated far further back. Unfortunately we can't know exactly how far back as the emperor destroyed all recorded knowledge from the other cultures.
As far as the language goes, there is a story that suggests written Chinese dates back as far as ~2500BC but we have no evidence of this. What we do have is actual written characters dating back to ~1200BC. The earliest Greek texts that we have date back to ~1400BC. So based on this evidence you could say Greek was earlier, but not by nearly as far as you suggest. You were correct in suggesting that other cultures developed writing around 2000 years earlier. The fact that current Chinese is not as old is a result of the cultural purge mentioned above.
As far as contemporary cultures are concerned, there are very few that can date back as far as 200BC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Centralized planning really does lend itself to grand, long-term ambitions; the problem is, all too often the plans are misguided! Just as in our economy, where most new businesses fail after a short while, except without the economic mechanism to weed them out.
Look at Stalin's railway plans for Northern Siberia [gaurc.us]. Of course, the analogy with China's new plan fails unless you can equate Europe with Northern Siberia, but still the
Re:That's what they said about the USSR (Score:5, Insightful)
politician is a politician, doesn't matter where, when, or under what circumstances, they all act the same.
How is it then, that Asia and Europe have high-speed rail all over the place, France has the best health care in the world, and my city (Vancouver) is very liveable? Some politicians seem able to "get things done," others bicker over Janet Jackson's nipple...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) high speed rail: lack of demand in the US
2) French health care: heh. go try it. and don't forget the accompanying taxes.
3) Vancouver: I found Chicago pretty damn liveable too, back when I lievd in the US
4) JJ's nipple: meh. muslim head scarf bans in france. minaret bans in Switzerland. so on and so forth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
French health care: heh. go try it. and don't forget the accompanying taxes.
Huh? The WHO ranks French healthcare as the best in the world. The US spends almost twice per capita of public funds on health care than France does.
cite:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/ [boston.com]
Plus, the arguement is specious anyway - The USA will have huge taxes, the nation-state has just decided to download those taxes onto your children, grand-chil
Re:That is just really cool. (Score:5, Informative)
Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.
You already can [wikipedia.org], though not high-speed. At the moment people take that train for the sake of the journey, not just to get from A to B.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you'd be on that train for about 39 hours. Air France can do it in 11.
And I really don't care if Air France can do it in 5 hours. Its such an impossible position to argue, but being able to slow down and appreciate the journey has merits that being airlifted to your destination in a flying hermetically sealed container tramples all over. The Airplane is an invention for people that hate the act of traveling. You're so impatient to get there, you don't realise that there is anything in between! How many times do you have get to travel in your life, and why choose specifically
Track width (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how the track width across different countries is going to work. If I remember correctly, that was a similar problem when connecting the UK to Europe. On the other hand, if this becomes cheap enough for car travel (which it probably already is), Eurasia might become a unified economic powerhouse over the next half century while the US will become a third world country (unless the US decides to invest in itself).
Re:Track width (Score:5, Informative)
An image illustrating the track widths across the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_gauge_world.png [wikipedia.org]
I assume that the whole planned track will be standard gauge, if they plan trains from London to Beijing? But the article doesn't say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Invest in our infrastructure? That would be communism! You're not a communist, are you?
And yes, standard gauge is 4'8.5". US, UK, Australia, Canada, and China all use standard gauge, as well as most of Western Europe. Russia's gauge is 3" wider.
So they'd have a job on their hands to connect up with Europe. They may run a third rail through Russia that matches with one existing rail to form standard gauge (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge [wikipedia.org]). Or they could just not connect to the Russian rail networ
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Track width (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry, the most expensive rail project in US history is well underway. New York City, with some help from the Federal government, is spending $18 billion to build an 8-mile subway line which does not even leave Manhattan. That $18 billion does not include the cost of initial planning which began about 80 years ago (seriously) nor the construction which began about 40 years ago (which was abandoned).
Jesus Christ we're screwed.
Never leaves manhattan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2nd ave line will be part of the subway, with the same price as the rest of the subway. Even if, at the subway fare, the line never pays for itself (doubtful considering the system, at over 100 years old now, is built with long-term in mind), it will give a cheap ride to a lot of people who can't afford a taxi. In this city the subway is the primary way people commute.
It's almost a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No clue, I'd agree. You need to at least see New York before you make guesses about what works there. The density is not like anything anywhere else in the country. There is no room at street level for anything new. The subway system carries almost eight million people every day. If those people were in cars by themselves, as is typical in ot
US is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
So China is building infrastructure that will let them transport goods throughout Asia and Europe very quickly and cheaply. Meanwhile, here in the US, people are fighting against the idea of building highspeed rail even between a handful of cities that are right next to each other.
If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we just going to let that happen? [That's a rhetorical question, BTW]
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Really? The rest of the world sees the USA as
I somehow find that hard to believe.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Got healthcare yet? Harboring any war criminals with impunity there? (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Yoo, heck the entire Bush admin). What do most Americans think of climate change? Or the theory of evolution?
This 1/6.5 billionth of the rest of the world thinks the USA, on average, is pretty backwards.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary. You have a sizable population against bank reform, even more against providing basic health care, insane unemployment, an entity composed of a slew of political parties too busy trying to resolve internal conflicts to notice the huge problems, and another political party so spoiled by a decade of near absolute power and focused on the short term that they do not see the huge wall as the nation hurls towards it like... Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.
So no, the US is not in trouble. Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think this is bad, wait until we go another 20 years without investing any money in infrastructure.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary.
I wish I disagreed with that.
You have a sizable population against bank reform,
That's not quite correct. I think most Americans agree that our banking system is totally screwed up. You might get the opposite impression by watching the news, where the Tea Party idiots dominate. But they're not a majority, they're a noisy minority. Consider that the person most of them would like to see in the White House is a lady widely regarded as the least competent politician in America.
The problem is that banking reform has to get approved by legislators who have to spend a lot of money to keep their jobs. And that gives the banking interests way too much clout, regardless of what the public at large believes. Note that the main proponent of banking reform is the President, and I think his views on the subject are closer to representing the popular will than anybody.
even more against providing basic health care,
We do provide basic health care. We just don't provide it very efficiently (our per-capita costs are three times anyone else, and still growing), and provide a criminally low level of care to maybe 1/3 of the population. Again, the main opposition is a minority and some well-financed interests. Here the majority has a vague notion that something's wrong, and that same President keeps trying to rally them for reform. I think the big problem here is that most people experience a health care system that's flawed but servicible, if you ignore its high cost — and the way we structure things, that's easy to do.
And in the general economic context, this is indeed a Very Bad Thing. High health care costs aren't the only reason U.S. manufacturing isn't competitive, but it's a big one.
Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.
I don't see a huge resistance to high-speed rail as such. The main problem is cost and NIMBYism.
The cost comes from the fact that we've had an anti-rail bias in our transportation planning for about a century. Highways are more popular with with voters (you get a lot more freedom of movement with a personal vehicle) and various property interests (a gigantic amount of money has been made by developing land that wouldn't have any value if housing were concentrated around rail corridors, as it is in Europe). So now that people are beginning to realize that tearing up all those urban rail lines was a mistake, it's way too expensive to buy up the right of way to build them back.
(Incidentally, France faced the same cost issue some decades back, when they realized they didn't have nearly enough passenger rail capacity. Building more rail lines was not affordable. But, unlike the U.S., they did have established straight rail corridors that could be upgraded without buying more land. So they made the trains faster, increasing their carrying capacity. Being able to travel from the English channel to the Med in less than 8 hours is just gravy.)
The NIMBYism is simply because of the huge impact of high-speed rail on the local urban environment. Take the LA-SF project. Funding for that was approved by a popular vote, but now that it's moving forward, communities around the route are not happy about the impact. Of course the impact wouldn't be nearly as bad as that of existing freeways — but we've already accommodated ourselves to that. But the cities on the San Francisco peninsula have suddenly realized that this new system would have to go through their downtowns, and aren't happy about it.
So anyway, you're right, we're totally and completely screwed. But don't blame it entirely on current stupidity. That's a factor, but there's also an excess of self-interest by everybody and the sheer mind-boggling cost of fixing past mistake.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Some interesting points. Europe is quite certainly in a lot of trouble, due in no small part to Russia, or more specifically the former Soviet Union nations. I am curious whether their system can work in any sort of long term. At least they try to mix things up a bit more than the US, so a few points for that. A few of the EU nations seem to be aware of the troubles brewing, and we shall see if they can respond in time, or if they will fall into the same traps that are strangling the US.
For Russia the issue is that they have already fallen so far that it is hard to imagine them going down much further. Even now they are significantly worse off than the US. The one thing going for them is that they have had a very strong leader in charge for a while. If the leadership can get the country back on track, and then loosen the reigns there may be hope. Otherwise we may just see the past century play itself out again.
So yes, Europe and Russia are pretty damn screwed too, though I will admit that there are still a few glimmers of hope across the pond.
Looking at China, I don't see how that system could survive. The old revolutionary leaders are getting to the age where they might start dying off any day now, and if the power games that will inevitably follow do not rip the country to shreds I will be very amazed.
I really know next to nothing about India, so I'll trust your judgement there.
Most interesting is that the fate of these regions is inevitably linked to the fate of the US. If that system collapses then all hell will break loose. If it survives, then I'm sure they will survive too, and prosper in the end.
And for the US, I'll grant that it's not completely hopeless. That said, changes need to start happening soon, and they need start happening fast. Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated. In that case we will likely see the Democrats lose any semblance of respect in the eyes of the voters, followed by a return to the good, new Republican values that created the crisis in the first place (Oh what I wouldn't do to see traditional Republican values back in place). At that point I'm pretty sure even God would shrug and get the popcorn.
So despite the tone of my original message you are correct, the US is not in as much trouble as some other regions of the world. In fact, they have a very good chance of getting out of the hole created by the antiquated systems. However, that needs swift and decisive action, which is exactly what the US system is designed to prevent. I am holding out in the hope that Obama can get his act and his party together. If not... Well, I'll be with that God fellow reaching for the popcorn, since there's won't be many places in the world with viable alternatives.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
For full disclosure. I am in fact Russian, and as such am quite familiar with what you mean. I do think Russia is at, or at least near the bottom of the slope, but I as I mentioned, there is some light. However, Russia is inherently tied to the stability of the Chinese and the European markets, which are in turn very closely tied to the US. Right now everyone is going through hard times, and if even one of these markets is screwed, than the others would follow like dominoes.
As for the western world, it's well past due for a major paradigm shift, which are wont to happen every few hundred years. As you pointed out, the current system has simply lived its course, though I disagree that the western world thinks itself strong and virile. Most educated people know that it can't hold out much longer. The brainwashed masses are what need to change, and yes, the wolves are closing in. Quite fast I might add.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Your point about the "presenile dementia" of Europe is exactly right. But even the Europeans know it, and they're planning for it now while there is time. They stabilized their population. Now if they can start producing all their own energy (hopefully on the model of France) and food, they'll have the basic insurance that no matter how stupid things get in the rest of the world, they will at least have enough to live on sustainably and indefinitely. Europe is retooling and re-imagining its infrastructure to prepare for this "blissful isolationist" future.
But the USA is also facing the same presenile dementia, and we are absolutely ill-prepared for it. Our people use immense amounts of energy, twice as much per capita as Germans, who still have a higher standard of living. Most of that is based on the "we live in suburbs" infrastructure. The suburbs will die when energy gets really expensive, but if re-housing the suburban emigres will be even more expensive, then they will move to slums and shanty towns, or maybe out into the farmlands where they will grow their own food. Europe always had a head start on the US when it comes to preparedness for expensive energy, and we're only falling further behind. Instead of fixing our own country, we keep trying to "fix" the rest of the world (sometimes with bombs), thinking that if we succeed, we won't have to change anything about ourselves. That's what Americans want to believe, but it's shockingly naive.
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US is in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't transport goods on high speed rail.
Maybe *you* don't transport goods on high speed rail, but I'd bet good money that China will.
Even as it is the only Amtrak lines in the US that are profitable are a couple short connections on the east coast.
Well first, part of my point is that people are rallying against high speed rail even in the northeast corridor of the US, which is heavily congested already. There's a mentality in the US that the government can do *nothing* right, which has lead to heavy neglect of all forms of infrastructure. Our train system is outdated, our bridges are falling apart, and our communications infrastructure stinks. Even in heavily populated areas, where investment makes a lot of sense, there are people saying, "let the free market sort it out!" Generally speaking, you can't really have free-market infrastructure.
Now as far as Amtrak being generally unprofitable, there's a very good reason for that: we've built our country around cars. We continue to pour tons and tons of money into cars and highways, and we continue to build our cities so that you have to have a car to live. We've developed our cities and towns so you can't walk anywhere and it's too dangerous to ride your bike. We've built huge housing developments where the nearest store is a 10-15 minute drive. We've done everything with the expectation that every man, woman, and teenager would have their own car, and once everyone has their own car, it makes more sense to just drive that car places rather than buying a ticket on a train.
What's more, you have a chicken-and-the-egg problem with Amtrak. People don't take Amtrak trains because the trains stink. They're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. Amtrak trains are slow and dirty and poorly run because the whole business is unprofitable. The whole business is unprofitable because no one takes the train anywhere. No one takes the train anywhere because they're slow and dirty and they don't stick to the schedule. It's a self-reinforcing loop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These are BS numbers anyway. No one's flying from LA to NYC in 3 hours; it's more like 6-8, plus an extra 2-3 hours minimum for going through security, sitting around the airport, etc. Interestingly, this trip used to be faster back in the 70s-80s, but it's gotten slower because airlines are flying their planes slower than they used to, in order to conserve fuel and cut costs.
If they built a maglev train across the USA, and made it cost-competitive with planes (or better yet cheaper), and made the cabins
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given how incompetently AMTRAK has been run, and the relative success of the car, it's no wonder that Americans are suspicious of putting money into trains.
Well roads aren't generally expected to function as businesses. Hell, these days, neither are car companies.
I'm afraid it's more basic: Most Americans don't have any idea that it's possible to have a society where every person doesn't have their own car.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be big (Score:4, Interesting)
This would be big, but in practice how efficiently can it run with stops in every country desired by the host country?. I think they could build this, and potentially there are a lot of benefits from doing so. Certainly the Chinese have done well with rail in China by many measures. Fundamentally, this story is more about navigating bureaucracy (a triumph of it's own right) than any particular technical challenge.
I think the bigger news would be if they started work on a railway from China to the US. That would only need to pass through Russia on the way to the US (with Canada if they want direct to the lower 48). The number of negotiations would be much lower, and the ability to safely send cargo through a rail tunnel under the sea would be worth untold billions. Tunneling under the Bering Straight is technically feasible, just look at the Chunnel and other such projects. It's slashdot, give us technical challenges, not bureaucratic ones!
FSVO "Feasible" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring for the moment the differences in depth and geological stability between the Channel and the Straights.
Re:This would be big (Score:4, Interesting)
Three words: great, circle, route...
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi [gcmap.com]
Not that this will actually happen anytime in the near future, but it isn't really too far off the direct route if you are only talking about being too far off the direct route being an issue. Of course trains are much slower than airplanes, but even planes arc past Sarah's place on such a journey.
In the recent past, it was easier to hug the coastline than to try to navigate the great circle route, but nowdays, airplanes have enough navigational safeguards to avoid tracing the coast. Of course in the past tracing the coast had other hazzards [wikipedia.org]...
High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclusive (Score:3, Informative)
You can't run high-speed rail and freight on the same tracks. It's because of the weight of freight cars. They can physically bend the rail enough for you to see it happening. So, the track doesn't stay in sufficient calibration to use for high-speed rail. Indeed, the first thing you do, if you want high-speed rail, is build an exclusive track line.
To be used for freight a system like this would need four tracks at a minimum. Two for passenger and two for freight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I really doubt that freight train cars would physically bend the tracks, and if they did, it would hardly be the reason why they don't run freight on high speed rail. Wikipedia states this:
Experience has shown however, that trains of significantly different speeds cause massive decreases of line capacity. As a result, mixed-traffic lines are usually reserved for high-speed passenger trains during the daytime, while freight trains go at night. In some cases, nighttime high-speed trains are even diverted to lower speed lines in favor of freight traffic.
In conclusion: it is the speed differences, not some kind of "track bending" that is the major reason they don't mix high speed train and freight trains.
As usual Slashdot is full of self proclaimed experts that exceeds at making up cool "facts" so they can me moderated +5 informative.
Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Bruce Perens is right.
You can't mix really high-speed (i.e. 500km/h) and freight trains. In your article 'high-speed' means "sub 200km/h".
Russia got the same exact problem on Moscow-Saint-Petersburg line, for example.
Where did you see hispeed rails in China? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's more along the lines of "All aboard the Occident Express! Visit the exotic lands of the Far West! See quaint native peoples living their traditional lifestyles for your amusement and tourist yuan!"
Re:Ominous (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hope the passengers don't mind getting blowed up by terrorists.
Death by snu-snu? I wouldn't mind being "blowed" by an attractive terrorist.
Re:Ka-boom! (Score:4, Informative)
China has the largest standing army in the world, using only 0.53 percent of its population in all of its armed forces. Also, I suspect the Chinese would use their forces more ruthlessly than the US. Even if someone is stupid enough to screw with China, the Chinese response should prevent any repetition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops [wikipedia.org]
Re:WTF ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same reason FDR could use the WPA to build bridges immediately, while Obama can't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
Who does, then? China has now about 3000km of lines operating between 250km/h and 350 km/h. Japan for example has 2200 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
PS it does (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country [wikipedia.org]
Country Total network length (km) and Average speed of fastest scheduled train
China 6552 km and 313 km/h ;)
Japan 2459 km and 256 km/h
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though it's phrased trollishly, you've summed up some differences pretty well. In practice, people drive a heck of a lot in Europe too but the roads here are perhaps harder work to do long distances on. But the thing about planes being the fastest way to get around long distance points to another difference. In Europe in particular countries are closer together, as is the perception of a "long" trip. The time cost of travel to airport, waiting around for the plane, collecting bags at the other end,
Re:High speed rail is for poor people. (Score:4, Insightful)