China's High-Speed Trains Coming Off the Rails 347
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that China's expanding network of ultramodern high-speed trains is coming under growing scrutiny over costs and because of concerns that builders ignored safety standards in the quest to build faster trains in record time as new leadership at the Railways Ministry announced that to enhance safety, the top speed of all trains was being decreased from about 218 mph to 186. Without elaborating, the ministry called the safety situation 'severe' and said it was launching safety checks along the entire network of tracks. Meanwhile China's Finance Ministry announced that the Railways Ministry continues to lose money as the ministry's debt stands at $276 billion, almost all borrowed from Chinese banks. 'In China, we will have a debt crisis — a high-speed rail debt crisis,' says Zhao Jian, a professor at Beijing Jiaotong University and longtime critic of high-speed rail who worries that the cost of the project might have created a hidden debt bomb that threatens China's banking system. 'I think it is more serious than your subprime mortgage crisis. You can always leave a house or use it. The rail system is there. It's a burden. You must operate the rail system, and when you operate it, the cost is very high.'"
You get what you incentivize/reward ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"must operate" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you actually do not HAVE to operate the expensive rail system you built, if you cannot afford to.
The world is full of rusting hulks of things people once thought they had to have, like wind turbines in Hawaii and California... monuments to people who once thought they had to have something, that it turned out they could do without after all.
Would dropping some of the train lines hurt China economically? Without doubt, but then so does spending far more than you take in.
Re:"must operate" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point was more along the lines that the system doesn't have any value at all unless you run it. Yet when you run it the cost is high.
Houses on the other hand you can simply stop building so many and the ones you have go up in value eventually.
Look ahead, or not. (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe China is not so stupid to believe that Oil will always be there, otherwise they would not be the world leader in installed renewable energy. On the other hand, communist heads of government in the country really need to deal with the corruption, but the build it faster will always come at reduced quality where humans are the builders. Quality work needs time, but the other problem is that as Oil costs go up so does the costs to build these green transport systems.
Reducing dependence on oil and using it only for advanced purposes would stretch it for a very long time. I think about a third goes into people's gas tanks, while the rest goes into advanced petrol products such as plastics and generic purposes such as fertilizer.
As a race it's annoying that a very vocal minority is derided by a majority that just refuses to believe we will ever run out. Within a hundred years we will be faced with three challenges. Fusion power to power our cities, combating global warming induced by our drive to have what we have today and expand it, and a large decrease in oil to provide the building blocks of advanced materials. Solving the energy equation should be a global priority, Fusion and renewables will provide what we need to fix the other two problems. If we fail in this, we may regress back a few hundred years, after several bloody wars that might just wipe us out anyways because I know damn well that majority will refuse at all costs go give up what they will lose if they fail to fix those 3 problems. And they'll probably take the human race with them.
Wishfull thinking for USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Houses on the other hand you can simply stop building so many and the ones you have go up in value eventually.
There are lots of examples of houses being built and after being abandoned, never being bought and eventually fall into ruin. Detroit has a ton of examples of properties where this is true. Anything you let lie fallow falls apart eventually.. a rail system seems much the same to me, if you stop running it you can either maintain the rails hoping they will have future value, or just totally abandon the system and let it fall into ruin.
I agree though it's a worse position they are in.
Re:Whoopee??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we supposed to be cheering at the knowledge that we're not the only ones that f**ked up our money management?
No, I would say sighing at the fact the up and coming world governments haven't learned from the fallen, and the fact that we as well have chosen not to learn from failed predecessors either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I feel the greed-driven will speed the entire global-economy off the rails in the coming years. When the big financial meltdown comes, I hope you're all ready. Inflationary capitalistic expansion will have its cost, and it will most likely end in human lives of those getting the trickle down from the top.
All those marketers, all those hedge-fund managers, all those financial instruments, the money printing, the interest rate hikes, the depletion of old-guard natural energy resources, the cost-cutting, the parasitic leeches of banks and speculative investment..they will kill the host before they kill themselves.
Yes, safety standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
There exist not only standards, but also products you can compare your solution against. For example, the Shinkansen has a safety record that is hard to believe -- no dead, only a few hurt, and only one derailment during a rather strong earthquake. There is a reason it has taken all countries with successful high-speed train networks years and huge investment to get where there are. Engineering isn't simple, and problems aren't readily solved by party directives.
I, for one, have made the point about safety biting the Chinese fast train in the ass just after they start the service many times. I think it is a very good thing that they are reacting the good way -- by slowing the rail, and looking into the trouble, instead of, you know, just running the trains at full speed and collecting the bodies.
Myth of China (Score:1, Insightful)
So will certain New York Times blowhards now stop holding up China as the model to emulate as we learn almost daily they have as many problems as we do? Nah. They get off on the idea of an all powerful State that 'gets things done.' And if a hundred million people in mass graves didn't clue em in that Communism sucks then nothing will.
Likewise for the cadre of Young Communists here on /. of course.
Re:Don't think I will take a trains herein the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not get a video of it and send it to a local news station?
Are you sure what the joke is? (Score:4, Insightful)
The joke is that there are no competent Chinese engineers to fix it. They'll have to hire German, Japanese, or French engineers from the firms that produced the plans they stole to build these lines in the first place and then pay them to fix the mistakes the incompetent Chinese "engineers" made "adapting" them.
I'm not sure the joke is what you are thinking. Its not that the new guys have to turn to the old guys for help, its that the old guys are willing to train their competitors/replacements.
Re:You get what you incentivize/reward ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeeeees, but you've got to be careful with that. You will get EXACTLY what you actually ask for, no more and no less, which is almost never what you really meant or want.
If you reward students for high grades in exams, you'll get just that. High grades. Not understanding of the subject, just high grades. If you reward bankers for making profits, you'll get just that. High profits. Not financial stability, just high profits.
The problem with incentives is that exceedingly few people are capable of setting them correctly. And not a single one of them will use "incentivize" as a word.
Re:Whoopee??? (Score:5, Insightful)
More so, you should be sighing at the fact that if China goes through a significant recession, they will likely bring every other country down with them, with differing levels of effect. Though, countries like Australia, will be hit extremely hard.
The funniest thing about this post...
'I think it is more serious than your subprime mortgage crisis. You can always leave a house or use it. The rail system is there. It's a burden. You must operate the rail system, and when you operate it, the cost is very high.'
It may be more serious than the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, but what about China's own housing crisis, which is like the U.S. but way more extreme as it's pushed through by their Government.
Also, your rant is the least insightful post I've seen. "Inflationary capitalistic expansion", done by a communist country? An obscure reference to Reganomics in a country where it doesn't apply in the slightest?
The up and coming haven't learnt? I think they have, if China hadn't made in roads towards providing their citizens with freer markets, China would have gone the way of Russia, quite some time ago.
All those marketers, all those hedge-fund managers, all those financial instruments, the money printing, the interest rate hikes, the depletion of old-guard natural energy resources, the cost-cutting, the parasitic leeches of banks and speculative investment..they will kill the host before they kill themselves.
Okay, now you're just listing random things which people infer bad things about. More so, you're listing contradictory "bad ideas".
"the money printing" is the OPPOSITE of "the interest rate hikes" which is counteracted by "all those financial instruments" but increases "speculative investment" .
"All those marketers, all those hedge-fund managers" okay, you need to say something more than this?
I don't even know what the fuck "the parasitic leeches of banks" is referring to.
I immediately thought you were an arts student, because this is the most retarded, least well thought out shit I've read in a long time. But then I notice that your writing is exceptionally bad, and it's hard to understand what you're actually trying to say. So, I'm guessing you're NOT an arts student then.
Save us some time, and please stick to... whatever you specialize in.
Sincerely,
Society
Those who steal rarely do it right (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Chinese cars. Very much clones of Honda and other Japanese brands yet youtube is replete with them failing European crash tests, some spectacularly. Very much a product of a society where all the appearances are there but the substance is not. Why? Most likely because for the most part there is little chance the blame will land on those who are mostly responsible.
Poor steel quality, copying only to the point of necessity, and an uninspired workforce, will all catch up to China soon.
Like North Korea, the real money and quality is only ensured when it comes to the military.
Re:Those who steal rarely do it right (Score:4, Insightful)
authoritarian government, it isn't too concerned about consumer safety.
Re:Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (Score:4, Insightful)
Rail in a free society will be more expensive than planes for a simple reason. Airplanes fly in the air. It doesn't cost anything to build or maintain air. You don't have to buy property rights to lay down your air tracks. But each foot of track requires 50-100 lbs of steel depending on the profile. A 10 mile track requires 2.5-5 million pounds of steel. All an airplane needs is an airport to take off from and land at.
Also look at the system like a network. If you want to build a new train station you have to buy (unless you are communist) a continuous strip of land from the nearest line to your station and design and build all of the crossings without affecting other traffic. Then you also have to make sure the line you are connecting to has the capacity to handle the traffic you are adding . An airport just requires a large enough plot of land. You are instantly connected to every other airport within range of the aircraft that your airport can service.
Re:Are you sure what the joke is? (Score:4, Insightful)
This one's kinda hard to develop conscience problems over.
China wants to modernize and become the next superpower; not just militarily, but in all aspects, especially technologically and economically (in fact, their military funding seems to be quite small compared to, for instance, the USA, and they seem much more interested in doing things like building world-class dams, trains, and other infrastructure projects than in building world-class fighter jets and aircraft carriers, which is the opposite of the USA where they build the most advanced military hardware and let the infrastructure decay).
Part of this strategy in becoming a world leader in tech is learning how to do everything themselves (self-sufficiency), rather than outsourcing everything. Since doing everything by themselves would take a long time, they "partner" with Western firms to learn how to do stuff quickly, paying handsomely for these firms' services, but they very quickly copy everything they can so that in 5 years they don't need the Western firms any more.
From a nationalistic POV, it makes perfect sense. Why would you want your country's infrastructure to be dependent on foreign companies? It's the same reason they adopted Linux and created their own government distro (Red Flag).
The USA has a similar demand for self-sufficiency with its military/defense contracting sector, but that's it (it's stupid to rely on potential enemies for critical military components, for obvious reasons). The USA has been self-sufficient for things like building bridges and roads and airplanes, and simply doesn't bother with high-speed rail (they just talk about it a lot but never do anything), so they don't have a lot of the same problems the Chinese have that way, but if there were more profit in having foreign companies build bridges and dams here, they'd happily do it just like they outsource everything else nowadays.
But for a company doing work in China, it's kinda hard to fault them for it. It's good business--the Chinese pay them well--and a lot of these companies probably aren't getting that much business at home (how many HSR lines are being installed in the USA or Europe)? Plus, if company A doesn't do it, then their competitor company B will, so company A might as well make some money while they can, which 1) keeps employees employed, and 2) brings money back to their own country from China rather than the other way around, even if it's short-term.
The thing to realize is that the Chinese motivations are totally different from Western companies'. In China, everything is about working for the good of the nation, not yourself or your company. Large companies there are state-controlled, so they have the same viewpoint; they'll pick a course of action that's better in the long term for the nation than something that's good in the short-term for their CEO and largest stockholders. In the West, it's the opposite; companies exist purely to make money for themselves and shareholders (and most of all, executives), and that's it. The national good doesn't come into the equation at all. I don't think it's hard to imagine which approach is going to do better in the next 50-100 years.
Re:Are you sure what the joke is? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you perfectly illustrated the GP point.
China screw your whole company - affected every employees. However, that's ok because a few of them will be able to retire. There is no more reason to complain about this than against the Banker destroying the economy or corps buying laws - the price was right for them.
After some 20 years of US teaching the rest of the world that profit is the only measure of success (screw the ethics and consequences), is it a wonder China learns the lesson and overshadows the teacher?
Really? First off, how is the US the only country "teaching" the rest world about greed? And secondly, since when has greed only been a problem for just a mere 20 years?
China wants power, and just happens to be smarter about it than the average power hungry developing nation. But pretty much everyone wants power, and this isn't because the US told them power is good. Nations and empires have been fighting based on greed since there have been nations and empires.
That said, while the economic collapse may have been spurred by US banks and bad US laws, if the US had tighter bank regulations it wouldn't have made a difference. The economic collapse didn't cause the problems in Europe, it EXPOSED them. Countries like Greece and Ireland that borrowed their way into prosperity. Ireland and Greece aren't victims of American policy. The collapse could have been caused by Europe instead of the US, but the collapse was inevitable.
You will never unlearn greed. The only thing you can do is try to legislate it in order to minimise its impacts, but it isn't going anywhere and will continue to be a driving force for all things you enjoy in your day to day life.