Slashdot Mirror


China To Connect Its High-Speed Rail To Europe

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.

691 comments

  1. A high speed railway by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      most likely for cargo. china makes stuff and would like to see it shipped to end customers faster.

    2. Re:A high speed railway by ndogg · · 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.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    3. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the US does the media appear to have citizens so afraid of terrorism, they dare not take trains or travel abroad like we used to. The perceived risk is much higher than the actual risk, however. You statistically have more chance dying in a bathtub accident than of terrorism... but irrational fear rules human nature, it would seem.

    4. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That worked out real fucking well in WWII.

    5. Re:A high speed railway by aaron+alderman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.

    6. Re:A high speed railway by Dunbal · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:A high speed railway by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      China has too much money and needs somewhere to put it.

    8. Re:A high speed railway by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. They have too much labor and need to do something with all of those people, hence getting the resources from the other states and providing all the labor.

    9. Re:A high speed railway by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny

      china makes shit

      Hundreds of millions of Wal-Mart shoppers can't be wrong.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    10. Re:A high speed railway by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 5, Interesting
      sorry, you made a type. You obviously meant to write, "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."

      putting hateful words in the mouths of others is something only an asshole would do.

    11. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This guy knows whats going on. People don't work together because it's fun, they work together to get things accomplished. I'm a little worried about China being in control (who knows if or what they could do restrict it), but it is still better than not doing it.

      Ironic... The Motor of the World being built by the Chinese : )

    12. Re:A high speed railway by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like ipods, and macbooks, and things like that?

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    13. Re:A high speed railway by Ricwot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure, during the worst economic crisis the world has known when nearly every country in the world had tariffs which stopped a lot of trade being viable. What exactly was Japan and Germany trading with the British Empire and the US at the time?

    14. Re:A high speed railway by Ricwot · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's reasonably obvious why they'd want materials rather than our money. For years we've been taking all of this cool stuff from them, and sending them worthless bits of paper in return.
      And recently every bank in the western world made the paper worth even less by printing more of it.

    15. Re:A high speed railway by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      It's not like China doesn't have enough manpower to provide security.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    16. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    17. Re:A high speed railway by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I checked, Japan attacked the USA in WW2 for stopping oil exports.

    18. Re:A high speed railway by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      In which case I apologise, and defer to your more truthful account.

    19. Re:A high speed railway by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      This is actually one of the best uses for their money. It should help get the development (and population) away from the coast. Brazil had the same problem, but their solution was to move the capitol 600 miles inland.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    20. Re:A high speed railway by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason.

      Seriously!

      Those damn Buddhists might all set themselves on fire in protest or something.

      Or are you talking about the anti-train sect of Christianity?

      Or the HSRNO Jainists that worry about insects being killed by the trains?

      Damn religions. They're all the same.

    21. Re:A high speed railway by Hadlock · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    22. Re:A high speed railway by telomerewhythere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell that to texas schoolkids... Oh wait, you can't.

    23. Re:A high speed railway by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What could possibly go wrong?

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:A high speed railway by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations

      Give me your wallet.

      No, seriously, "economic interdependence", which on a global scale is just a code word for "sell off your natural resources" just ensures that we all hit the brick wall of resource depletion at the exact same time, driven there by the countries that consume the least responsibly.

      The peace of plenty and content today; and, tomorrow, the peace of unburied death.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    25. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their cheap labor dried up!

    26. Re:A high speed railway by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about trade... China has been doing a lot of this bartering lately - avoiding paying cash for things in exchange for construction, trade contracts, or goods.

      How is that not trade? Currency is a handy intermediary for trade, but it's not always necessary.

    27. Re:A high speed railway by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      sorry, you made a type. You obviously meant to write, "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, because for the most part they pay a fair wage to their workers and they don't use children labor"

      There, fixed that for you.

    28. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians have existed since the universe went bang. So have violent people who like being shitty to each other. Solving these problems should be well understood by now.

    29. Re:A high speed railway by dakameleon · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    30. Re:A high speed railway by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Really? How so? I didn't read TFA, but they don't need to go through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and all those cesspools in the mid-east. They can just go north through the former Soviet countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and then Russia and into the eastern European countries. Except for the stuff in Georgia, and Chechnya (which is right next to Afghanistan), those countries have all been pretty stable since breaking off from the USSR.

    31. Re:A high speed railway by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Yes, they can. And I have proof!

    32. Re:A high speed railway by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, 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.

    33. Re:A high speed railway by Knoman · · Score: 1

      First we'll export all the cheap plastic crap we have a surplus of, then we can export all these "surplus" soldiers we have! Yep, that's the ticket!!!

      --
      "It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
    34. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    35. Re:A high speed railway by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Sounds kinda mercantilist right?

    36. Re:A high speed railway by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Brazil went bankrupt doing that. They paid for it with hyperinflation for decades. Hopefully the Chinese aren't digging the same kind of hole.

    37. Re:A high speed railway by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, 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...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    38. Re:A high speed railway by Jenming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    39. Re:A high speed railway by Jeoh · · Score: 0

      No no, China makes shit and would like to see it shipped to end customers faster

    40. Re:A high speed railway by DesScorp · · 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.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    41. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tag I had in mind was monorail

    42. Re:A high speed railway by Jenming · · Score: 1

      Always hating on religion, in my experience nutbags that won't listen to reason are equally dangerous no matter their creed or lack thereof.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    43. Re:A high speed railway by Miseph · · Score: 1

      And only cowards are afraid to do so...

      This is anticipated to take at least a decade. They could just as easily avoid building into those areas until things settle down on that kind of time line. Plus, one of the things those countries have in common is oil, and one of the things China just doesn't have enough of is, drumroll please, oil.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    44. Re:A high speed railway by DesScorp · · 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.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    45. Re:A high speed railway by davidannis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a religious world view rests on faith. Religious nuts encourage strong faith, which is belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. It is that reliance on strong faith that leads to so much excessive evil on the part of the aforementioned zealots.

    46. Re:A high speed railway by DesScorp · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    47. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.

      Prosperity has really helped reduce meddling, war and neocolonialism in America over the last hundred years.

      It's not like seeking out profits has caused things like banana republics, overthrowing of democratically elected foreign governments, funding low-level guerilla warfare against populist leaders, etc.

    48. Re:A high speed railway by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    49. Re:A high speed railway by pydev · · Score: 1

      Consider it a giant straw through which China will suck up Asia and Europe's raw materials.

      Europe doesn't have any raw materials anymore; they were used up during the first wave of industrialization.

    50. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes, he did say "shit," no need to re-iterate.

    51. Re:A high speed railway by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      Less than could go wrong with being fully dependent on sea lanes for your economy, especially when one of your political rivals completely dominates world sea power.

    52. Re:A high speed railway by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      And do you really think the PRC is interested in spreading prosperity and equality?

    53. Re:A high speed railway by HBoar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on, they also make a lot of good stuff along with all that rubbish.

    54. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shift and period keys broken on your keyboard? Maybe slightly more effort to type, but then harder for thousands of others to read.

    55. Re:A high speed railway by Al's+Hat · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you except for the amount of our debt they own.

    56. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the neocolonialist meddlers are the religious nutbags.

    57. Re:A high speed railway by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

      The Chinese did a great job building our railroads in the U.S. !

    58. Re:A high speed railway by evanspw · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about economic interdependence, but I reckon cultural interdependence helps a shitload too. The economic interdependence argument was very popular in about 1910. Europe couldn't possibly go to war, they said! Well, it turned out to be pretty easy to get folks to hate each other and go kill and die for something as abstract and ultimately arbitrary as the idea of the state. Best thing is to share the love! (er, civil wars - what was I saying?)

      --
      Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
    59. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are trying to say is that only assholes put shit into the mouths of others?

      ooohhh, it's some weird Asian porn

    60. Re:A high speed railway by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      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.

      Now what exactly does RMS have to do with this?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    61. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism has failed us? let me know when it's been tried without retarded politicians getting in the way.

    62. Re:A high speed railway by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That only works when both sides seek that and cooperate. When one ties their money to the others, has trade barriers, dumps their products, and subsidizes, then it will fail badly for all.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    63. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you'd be just as indignant at US exporting similar crap made in similar circumstances 100 years ago.

    64. Re:A high speed railway by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      well... for the most part american enterprise is incapable of not paying a fair wage or using child labor. laws and unions and malicious media and such.

    65. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    66. Re:A high speed railway by paeanblack · · Score: 2, 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've been trying to kill you for ages!” So kill your own people, right on there!"

      --Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill

    67. Re:A high speed railway by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      He's stating the obvious, but completely on the topic of "China's High Speed Rail Project". WTF mods?

    68. Re:A high speed railway by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you're advocating for indirect genocide in the most populous countries, eh?

    69. Re:A high speed railway by joggle · · Score: 1

      You are correct that it doesn't bring a utopia. However, one could argue nuclear weapons bring peace too due to MAD, or at least help with global stability and usually nuclear weapons are about as far from a utopian vision as one can imagine.

      I think having strong trade ties certainly serves as a good deterrent to war even if it doesn't always succeed in preventing wars. As probably anyone posting here knows the trade between China and the US is so immense that neither country could cut economic ties without causing great harm to their own economy and currency. That was not the case between Germany and France in 1941, a time when trade was much lower as a fraction of their economies than it is today.

      A closer analogy probably would be the American Civil War when the trade between the north and south was a substantial fraction of their economies and the sudden drop in trade caused economic harm to both (although particularly the south). However, in that case the south viewed the alternative (no slaves) as an economic disaster too which mitigated that concern.

    70. Re:A high speed railway by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You do hope they're digging the same hole, if you're a part of certain other nations of the world.

    71. Re:A high speed railway by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, advocating that would be wrong.
      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 a yummy fish. Lets catch them all and eat them. Oh.... where did all our yummy fish go?) is ghastly.

      Again, while horrid, perhaps a better form of population control would be some sort of pandemic that went through and culled the numbers. Say, 90 out of a hundred? The irony is that it would be a more humane way to cut back the numbers. It would be indescriminate, wouldn't pick poor or rich, intelligent or thick - basically do all the dirtywork without anyone being able to point a direct finger at anyone else. Luck of the draw type thing. That way, at least the remainder could carry on without the guilt of anything so abbhorrent on their conciousness at night.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    72. Re:A high speed railway by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Halve the costs? The majority of costs are in setting up the railways themselves of which labor is most definitely the percentage of the cost.

    73. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudi Arabia does not trade. It exports.

    74. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This depends on what you call "Capitalism." Would you call China capitalist? Would you call America Capitalist?

      In America, people are paid to not work (unemployment) and where the federal government sets the interest rates - a "capitalist" market? In China, they face very little intervention - no rules on wages, no huge taxes, no expensive process for starting a business. Say what you will about the people and their living conditions, but it seems to me that their money is far freer to move. They're also on the way up, instead of on the way down.

      So, has Capitalism failed us? I think that's not the determining factor. I think that whenever we start putting lots of rules on a free market, manipulating its prices, and taking money from one group of people so we can give it to another (taxation), we are setting ourselves up to fall. The economy is the engine that drives a country, and messing with it will (eventually) result in a breakdown - whether you call it "capitalism" or not.

    75. Re:A high speed railway by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Why wouldn't they? They do a lot of bad things, but it seems almost entirely motivated by "keep the party in power" and "keep the Chinese population happy and subdued at all costs". Never, though, have they shown themselves to be against lifting their neighbours out of poverty.

      Just because someone is bad, it doesn't mean they're entirely bad.

    76. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GP meant with more trade, is that improving the transport infrastructure typically opens more opportunities for business in that region, instead of the actual infrastructure construction phase.

      Of course, other things aside the infrastructure are also necessary, but typically infrastructure investments act as a catalyst to boosting local economy. At least that often happens in smaller scale.

    77. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the "equality" part of that equation, didn't you?

    78. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Texas has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Texans are actually wealthy.

      So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.

    79. Re:A high speed railway by benito27uk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I suppose technically Germany was France's number one trading partner in 1940, but that was only because Germany occupied much of France at that time. For much of the world the Second World War started in 1939, not 1941.

    80. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only if the country that cant pay in money that will pay in raw materials. Burma is one of them.

      Map:
      http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/teknik/london-peking-pa-tva-dygn-1.1059512

    81. Re:A high speed railway by Slorv · · Score: 1

      And many thousands of "manufacturers" in the US and Europe appearently can't be wrong either since so much manufacturing and assembly has been moved to China already.

      --
      Bikers.....The only people that understand why a dog hangs his head out a car window.
    82. Re:A high speed railway by CyberK · · Score: 1

      Goodness me, I would have thought that the trade between France and Germany was significantly reduced after France declared war in 1939. Or maybe, you know, after Germany invaded France in 1940. If you had said before 1939 you would have been correct, remember that the USA arrived late for the party that was WWII.

    83. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'unfortunately the rest of the world is willing to purchase products made with poor environmental, labor and safety levels :/'

      Are you talking about US cars?

    84. Re:A high speed railway by hanabal · · Score: 1

      which group of nations would benefit from a partial or total collapse of the Chinese economy. If that happened I fear the world would become a place that no-one will feel safe.

    85. Re:A high speed railway by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?

      Only 60-70 years ago, Europe was the most politically unstable region of the world... :)

      Things can change... and it's not the Chinese making trouble in those regions that are unstable. Many European countries aren't involved either.

      Remember that in every region in the world, Peace is always an option.

    86. Re:A high speed railway by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Tell that to texas schoolkids... Oh wait, you can't.

      So, we may conclude that Texas needs a high speed railway too.

    87. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they deny criticism from a country (US) that has not a single mile of high speed train tacks and whose low speed trains suck.

    88. Re:A high speed railway by rve · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing this argument, and it's absolutely ludicrous. Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941?

      What is the significance of this year, 1941? The war in Europe started in 1939, and France had been defeated by late spring 1940.

    89. Re:A high speed railway by daveime · · Score: 1

      If you exclude all the Mexicans from your statistics, then yes, you are probably correct.

    90. Re:A high speed railway by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      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?

      Someone told me a while back that if I worked out regularly, I'd get stronger. Well I totally lifted some iron for, like, half a week. And I didn't get any stronger! What's up with that?

      Major cultural and political change takes longer than twenty years. Come back to it in eighty years. If China isn't at the very least bucking against its dictatorship, then you can say it was a failure.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    91. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Guess who France's number one trading partner was before 1941?"

      You mean that Schicklgruber brat?

    92. Re:A high speed railway by PHPfanboy · · Score: 4, 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".

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    93. Re:A high speed railway by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Nah, HTC is Taiwanese.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    94. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am afraid by their competition too, but it is not an excuse for talking out of ones ass.

      Child labor in China? Citation needed on that one. Seriously. Children are in short supply in China (decades of "one child" policy) and they are brought up as little royalties, having undivided concentrated attention of their two parents and four grandparents. Yeah, for sure they would let their little darling work in a sweatshop!

      Fair wage ... point taken, however, we are talking about wage in the land of super-cheap consumer products. Their wage buys them stuff (and EVERYTHING you buy is made there) which is priced much, much lower then even ... well, then Chinese-made stuff shipped over here!

      Now, this hurts: importing their goods will pull down our wages, which we will have to put up with, and we will be able (and therefore forced) to do so, because we would be able to afford living by buying available cheap stuff. In the end it will all level out, on an much lower level of wages and prices (deflation). Quality will suffer as well and as it always did along the course of history (stuff is not made as good as it was "back in my time, now get off my lawn" ).

      Net effect from perspective of typical wage slave will be that things that cannot be imported (e.g. services, real estate, travels, education, etc.) will become significantly more expensive, at least at first. However, long term effect of low average income will pull prices of everything having elastic demand downwards. After this economic ripple wave splashes around all of the world, China will have difficulties maintaining their global industrial hub position - the businesses will begin to disperse, some of them coming back home from China (same wages, same or better workforce, greater proximity to specific markets).

      Africa may be the next China. Then, after the oil runs out and everything crumbles down over there, the Middle East. Then, who knows? It is a lot like extensive "slash-and-burn" agriculture. Some countries may get more then one run.

    95. Re:A high speed railway by SenseiLeNoir · · 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.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    96. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have a line to europe through russia. Maybe they want an alternative to Putin's terms.

    97. Re:A high speed railway by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. This project will likely help facilitate that outcome whether that's their intention or not.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    98. Re:A high speed railway by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      His actions caused a lot of deaths, he faked his own death and has now taken an alias as a philosophical programmer trying to make up for all his wrongs.

    99. Re:A high speed railway by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Again, while horrid, perhaps a better form of population control would be some sort of pandemic that went through and culled the numbers.

      Or perhaps birth control. Preventing life is probably more ethical than causing death.

    100. Re:A high speed railway by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I am not saying it's a great idea for anyone to implement matey. I am certainly not planning to do anything like that, but if you for a moment thing that as a species, there aren't too many of us on the planet to indefinately support our lifestyle without some major changes - you are in denial.

      Just becuase you have a point of view, doesn't mean you have to follow it through to it's inevitable conclusion. What if you are wrong and the others are right? I have an opinion, that our "human" way of life as it is right now cant be sustained by the planet, especially with the population explosion that we are undergoing.

      Have a look at these numbers:
      Source: Population growth data
      1AD: 200 Million
      1000AD: 310 Million
      1750: 791 Million
      1900: 1,650 Million
      1975: 4,068 Million
      2000: 6,070 Million
      Jul. 1, 2008: 6,707 Million

      Also, do you think that people today do more harm to the planet than say 100 years ago? How about 500 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?

      The first thing I said in my post was No, advocating that would be wrong. but it doesn't mean it isn't true. Unleashing something like that is unimaginable - but if it were to happen naturally, it might just be a saving grace for the overall race.

      As sad as it is, humans have become an invasive species on this planet. We are wiping out everything else. It's only a matter of time before we wipe oursleves out entirely. I wouldn't like to see that happen.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    101. Re:A high speed railway by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      This is actually one of the best uses for their money. It should help get the development (and population) away from the coast. Brazil had the same problem, but their solution was to move the capitol 600 miles inland.

      Well, it's going to get more than high-speed rail to get the population away from the coast. One of the things limiting the population growth inland is the lack of an ample fresh-water supply. The same problem that limits growth to the US's western states.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    102. Re:A high speed railway by greulich · · 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.

    103. Re:A high speed railway by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      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.

      That's true. And you aren't the only one to notice, either.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    104. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said

    105. Re:A high speed railway by xelah · · Score: 4, 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.

    106. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why we're in this fucking basket to begin with.

      Could you possibly be any more self-centered?

    107. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was on about iPoa, maobook, Nice, Adibas, Somy and other high quality stuff

    108. Re:A high speed railway by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    109. Re:A high speed railway by Corbets · · Score: 1

      china makes shit

      Well, a billion people eating rice will certainly produce a fair amount, that's for sure. Though honestly, you should probably do an analysis of other countries' excrement production as well, as your comment sort of implies that they're the only ones in the business.

    110. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It's true that the rich work on getting more power, but those that don't do anything with it haven't yet met the law of "Use It or Lose It". They often realize it only too late and then get stuck in the "if only's".

    111. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      Dude, look at China in the 60's; in those days it was as closed and as oppressive as North Korea today.

      Sure it isn't exactly a bastion of freedom but these days it's possible for people to criticize their superiors and actually NOT disappear. Economically, it's arguably freer than the West!

    112. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Actually using those methods you mentioned can have more long term costs for short term gain, but they are improving in many areas. And speaking about fair wages, I don't think that is limited to China?

    113. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Africa may be the next China. Then, after the oil runs out and everything crumbles down over there, the Middle East. Then, who knows? It is a lot like extensive "slash-and-burn" agriculture. Some countries may get more then one run.

      ROFLAMAO!!! I don't think so - niggers ain't Chinese! Asia has had civilization for 5000 years - Africa ain't got it yet, and ain't ever likely to!

      Seriously - what planet are you living on?

    114. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Trade is good. Trade wars are not. They lead to real wars. Hell in WWII the Nazi's and the Japs could have been stopped by 1940 if not for the Great Depression. France was already in defeat before the fight even started. They should have went straight through Germany at the point they were busy with Poland. In 1939 Germany's combat power was far more limited than just France alone. You know the UK didn't have as bad a time during the Great Depression because of the devaluation of the Pound Sterling. Our combat power was piss poor during the 30's.

      Don't think China isn't impressive in this area if only because of size alone.

    115. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Is this sarcasm?

      "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."

      How they acquired those resources is where the trouble was. They could have traded for them as they now do.

    116. Re:A high speed railway by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether or not the prosperous feel like they are a part of the system. Prosperous, middle-class kids with plenty of free time and a stinging sense that they don't have control over their lives have driven revolutions for as long as we have known that word.

    117. Re:A high speed railway by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Troll

      Ha ha ha ha. I love you guys, and I'm glad to see you're somewhere still lurking (anonymously, of course!) on the intarwebs.

      Hi, I'm FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, I'd like my news back.

      Also, I'm obsessively focussed on the United States. No country other than the US has ever behaved with hegemonic disdain for the sovereignty of smaller countries. Ever! The United States INVENTED it, in fact. Like slavery. And racism.

      Hey, is that a black helicopter over your shoulder? Didn't you see that same delivery van parked outside your house yesterday?

      --
      -Styopa
    118. Re:A high speed railway by rubypossum · · Score: 1

      In most cases that's not meddling, it's looking out for its own interest. There was plenty of meddling on the part of Russia. It was called USSR. In fact all countries under its jurisdiction were under an iron law that many died from. Including genocide against non-Russian.

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
    119. Re:A high speed railway by Smuttley · · Score: 1

      Like?

      Counties mentioned are:
      UK, Germany, Russia, India, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma and Malaysia

      Probably the only one that you could call "politically unstable" would be Thailand.

    120. Re:A high speed railway by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      Problem is we'll get to a point where food supplies won't support the amount of people, so we'll have to sterilize quite a lot of people in places with severe food shortages to be humane (or hope they don't breed). It's a sad fact of life until we can get science to match growth in keeping enough resources, but it will always be a race between the two.

      We could ignore it and let millions of babies be born only to suffer starvation though, let "nature" do its work but that really isn't "humane" at all.

      The trouble will be deciding who to sterilize, hopefully a 1 or 2 child policy might be able to be made to keep population in control.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    121. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay, it's just as they planned. With this, China's blitzkreig strategy will be far more successful than germany in a much shorter time. China will easily take over the world in under a decade - and they will do it so that they can destroy the 'impure' races of the 'filthy european, african, and american mutts'. Or, at least, that's what the couple chinese students I work with would have me believe.
      (I've already begun my military training...)

    122. Re:A high speed railway by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, 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 shows a minimum of 4 stops each way.

      And non-US citizens still wonder why we don't just take the train???

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    123. Re:A high speed railway by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Don't kid yourself. With a standing army of 3 million they could protect it if they feel they needed to, not to mention an INCREDIBLY DEEP reserve should the need arise.

      Beside, the Chinese only need to negotiate amicably with the Russians to accomplish this. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with geography but their immediate neighbor Russia extends from the Pacific to Europe without interruption. Russia has many problems, but its not as if the rail line needs to pass through Chechnya. The Russians would be delighted to play the middle-man between Europe and China as it would greatly bolster their international standing, not to mention greatly improve their rail system and better unite their east and west coast economies.

      Projecting the notion that just because the US is unable to get things done in Central Asia, in the rest of the world, or at home for that matter, doesn't mean that others are simply standing around waiting for us to get our act together. Make no mistake the Chinese are moving so far ahead of the US in high-speed rail technology that its hard to imagine that our debt-ridden nation will ever catch up. When you think that rail is the most efficient means of moving people and material, you would have to be some kind of fool to think that over the long run, this will not translate into relative economic, technological, cultural, military, and environmental advantage.

      While republicans and other "don't tax-me citizens" may be able to prove that they can block every kind of progress in the US, that doesn't mean that America isn't paying a price for such obstructionism.

    124. Re:A high speed railway by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Given China's attitude toward religion, perhaps that explains their exceptional progress in high-speed rail development.

    125. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      1950 something until 1968

      CIA experiments with mind control using LSD amongst other terrible measures on thousands of US citizens without their consent. Came to an end in 1968 when Bonanza was first shown in color on TV. CIA now has their mind control.

    126. Re:A high speed railway by dbIII · · Score: 1

      North Korea is something else entirely. I've met people from the north of China bordering North Korea that lived through the 1960s and saw many starve, but they are still horrified by the stories they hear from North Korean refugees.
      North Korea was in a worse state than China in the 1960s and it's gone a very long way down since then.

    127. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Of course they are communist. It's one form of religion and they seek more converts.

    128. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Trading without paying cash. Cool, avoids so much paperwork and taxes. Damn I've got some raw materials they might want and hell I need some rice.

    129. Re:A high speed railway by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      You didn't go "From Soho down to Brighton, did you?" 8-)

      Although i suppose you said that as a joke, from Soho, to London Victoria (there the train to brighton departs) is a 10 minuite journey on the Underground (assuming from Oxford Circus). Its a cheap journey too. beating car/taxi in speed and price.

      I actually started my journey from Harrow, which was longer, but still cheaper/quicker than car overall.

      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 shows a minimum of 4 stops each way.

      And non-US citizens still wonder why we don't just take the train???

      Actually I DO understand why you guys dont take the train, and I was trying to say, it needed be that way! :)

      Wouldnt you take a train if it was competitive to car?

      --
      Have a nice day!
    130. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Stalingrad 1942. Germany went the other direction ever since that point in history. When Germany took France and Norway plus they also traded heavily with the neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland. Man, 1941 was the year that Germany's combat power increased significantly they had control of France and all of the low countries. Even the Germans didn't think they could just walk right past the French whose army was very static an spread out. Why did they even wait for 1940? The French could have practically waltzed right through Germany while they were busy with Poland.

    131. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Probably, Norway.

    132. Re:A high speed railway by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, 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 from 'downtown', and a cab ride would be $20-$25.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    133. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, remember all those old Bond films like Goldfinger? Lots of Chinese bad guys. Now they don't have to destroy Fort Knox. There isn't anything in that building anymore but a bunch of old used monitors.

    134. Re:A high speed railway by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Actually from what i understand, most of the factories in china could make anything at just about any level of precision required, but as you move up the precision scale it costs more, at some point the shipping across the ocean outweighs any savings you could have made and so it's made locally. shipping in both cost and as in lead time, shipping from china is about 3-4 weeks minimum.

      I'm sure they would like to see things shipped faster, but I think their major market is the USA, I'm not sure how much time a trip to the UK would save. Now it would likely open up some more market share in Europe, as well as some tourism. The way it is, a trip from Germany to the south of Italy is around two days via train, IIRC. Even if it was a three day trip to get to Beijing, the trip across the countryside would be well worth it. It's also likely cheaper than a plane ticket and all of that hassle. I wonder how feasible an interconnect at the bearing straight would be. I'd love to take a train to China and Japan for a visit. or for that matter just to Alaska or anywhere else in the USA. yes I know and have looked at amtrack, and while it is cheaper than a plane it has some dumb hours. Like a 3AM arrival to a closed station in the middle of Lansing MI. Not so good for a family sort of travel.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    135. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      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.

      Mike Godwin?

    136. Re:A high speed railway by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      We'll I read that, but that still leaves the Middle East. India would be likely as they are almost as powerful now.

    137. Re:A high speed railway by cynyr · · Score: 1

      that wasn't his point, it seemed he knew why We don't use the train. His point was why does our suck so bad, it's not like we are hard up for 20'-100' wide swaths of land for the tracks, and with the fairly open spaces between population centers it would seem that we could easily add high speed (180-250MPH) interconnects, it should be cheaper than a plane and use less fuel to boot, no worries of it crashing into a building either. As was mentioned above there is a "mass transit is for poor people" mentality. There also is a "I don't want to spend money on anything that might help anyone else out at all". Fixing potholes in the highways/freeways around me is hard enough, let alone adding rail. we are slowly adding rail line though, but what do you do once you get into downtown? the buses don't really work here as they are now.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    138. Re:A high speed railway by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      That really depends on the brand of communism one adheres to. Say Lenin's brand of communism; that had to spread or the entire thing was pointless. Stalin's and Kim Jong-il's one state variety can sit right where they were/are as long as the personality cult keeps going.

      China's seems to be something very different. There are so many people going in so many directions that making it work as a cult is impossible. As far as spreading, this capitalism thing seems to be working pretty well for them at the moment. So for the time the government will keep going with mantras of the importance of self-sacrifice and yadda-ya about how the nation is the people (and somehow also the government) until either the volk ignore it because of the noise and glitter of prosperity or prosperity halts and well, I don't like to imagine that scenario.

    139. Re:A high speed railway by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Nice flame, but if you RTFA there is one line being built through Russia, and the other South through India (countries further west are not named). Not sure how you can do better than redundancy, in that or any part of the world.

    140. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 'cause us 'Mericans kin jest lay dem rail and such out across the big, open plains with nothin' on 'em.

      1) This is the 21st century. The 19th century, the one with all the unoccupied land in the US, was one hundred-ten years ago.
      2) Any attempt to lay rails across STATE LINES will be Federal unless A) a private company does it or B) the states agree to do it. and since C) there is no money in this and D) the states fight about everything it E) won't happen so F) off.

    141. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero factual arguments. Are your posts always like that?

    142. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see Fluffeh say he wouldn't be willing to draw a straw. There's no malice or direction in his writing. Simply a fatalistic acceptance of the Malthusian hypothesis. Malthus wasn't nice, he wasn't socially acceptable; but he may have been right. Human growth isn't sustainable at current levels.

    143. Re:A high speed railway by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      That worked because once you got to London, you could still get around town without a car. When my father was stationed over there in the mid-'80s, we drove into London once. The hassle of navigating through traffic and finding parking spaces were such that subsequent trips were by train instead.

      Try doing that in most cities here. You could probably do something similar with New York City easily enough. I tried doing without a car on one trip to Portland for OBF...it worked, but not without lots of walking that eats into your time. That might be OK when you're there for fun (as I was), but not so much for business. Most other places, you can forget about getting around much if you don't have a car. It's a good thing that airports offer car-rental facilities...don't know if train stations usually do, as we don't even have a train station here in Las Vegas.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    144. Re:A high speed railway by default+luser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The interstate highway project killed rail transit in this country, and airline deregulation sealed the deal. The highway system was built at about the same time that the train world was looking into high-speed rail. It turned-out to be cheaper to build brand-new roads for cars than it was to upgrade existing track for high speeds, and add electrification to the entire network.

      Unfortunately, we have two large mountain ranges splitting the country into pieces, and everyone knows building train lines to get over/around/through mountains can get very expensive, especially if you want to add electrical infrastructure in the middle of nowhere. And even if you built the line, you couldn't run the trains at high-speeds on grades and curves in mountainous country. Building a road for cars through the same mountain range requires a lot less engineering, and the cars can actually move quickly, because they're not trying to keep hundreds of tons of cargo from derailing.

      Sure, you can build high-speed lines on the Great Plains, but there's not enough passenger demand to support such a thing. In the 1950s, you only had one major destination that was not cut-off by mountains (Chicago), so there was no need for a major transit corridor. If you wanted to go somewhere besides Chicago, you would've had to switch to diesel when you hit the mountains, so what was the point?

      This is why we only have one high-speed train corridor, and why it's on the east coast. There are plenty of destinations worth hitting along that major corridor, so there's enough demand to justify (and flat enough land to allow) the building of high-speed electrical train lines. The interstate highway system may be overloaded near the coasts, but it is an absolute dream to drive in the interior of the country. For those needing faster transit, the airline industry has grown to meet that demand, so there's no really no need today for train transit.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    145. Re:A high speed railway by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Moreover, traveling from Washington, D.C. to Kansas City (just to provide a proxy for traveling half-way across the country) would take 6 hours if traveling at 180mi/hr. This would be for a direct run. Add in any transfers (likely route would be DC>Chicago>Kansas City) adds even more time. The cost per trip would have to be substantially less than flying. Even then, I would never tolerate sitting within 6 feet of a crying 3-year-old for half the day.

      The problem the US has with high-speed rail is that it's too spread-out of a country. It's unrealistic for the country to build any high-speed rail network that resembles the interstate highway. Anything less would defeat the purpose because any transfers to slower networks would result in a significantly longer travel time(taking a current Amtrak route from Chicago to Kansas City takes 7 hours on its own....)

    146. Re:A high speed railway by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Ahhh another moron racist.

      If you are white, my racist friend, you are a mutation, a mutant, a freak show. The original human beings were all coming out of Africa and trust me on this, they were NOT white.

      The only reason why you are a mutant white freakshow, is because your very remote ancestors, moved further north where the sun doesn't shine as much and it was beneficial to have a lighter skin to absorb energy.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    147. Re:A high speed railway by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...no worries of it crashing into a building either.

      No?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    148. Re:A high speed railway by daoshi · · Score: 1

      Before Pearl Harbor, Japan had invaded China, Mongolia and parts of the USSR.

      Before Pearl Harbor, Mongolia was still part of China. If you go and check P.O.C (ie Taiwan)'s map. Mongolia is still part of China today.

    149. Re:A high speed railway by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I can drive that same route (105 miles) for a tenth of that...

      Are you including all the costs? Plates, insurance, maintenance, etc? At least on the train you can shave your hoo-haa without causing an accident..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    150. Re:A high speed railway by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      i am still completely correct. mexicans aren't "the most part".... yet.

    151. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are white, my racist friend, you are a mutation, a mutant, a freak show. The original human beings were all coming out of Africa and trust me on this, they were NOT white.

      So what? Prior to that, the predecessors to human beings were homo erectus. Does that mean you're a homo erectus?

      The only reason why you are a mutant white freakshow, is because your very remote ancestors, moved further north where the sun doesn't shine as much and it was beneficial to have a lighter skin to absorb energy.

      Dude, if you think the only difference between races is skin color, you are the moron. An anthropologist can look at your thigh bone, and discern from that your age, sex, and yes, your race. Perhaps you can explain the role of the thigh-bone in absorbing energy from the sun? We won't even get in to what you can tell from a DNA sample. That's a little bit more difference than skin color.

    152. Re:A high speed railway by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more.

      I recently traveled by high-speed train in the US (well, it was high-speed half the way at least) and found:

      1. I had to drive to the train station. It cost a fortune to park there since it was in city-center. However, based on my travel times if I took a train into the city I'd have had to wait a LONG time for the return route.

      2. The train was pretty expensive. Cheaper than air, but definitely more expensive than driving.

      3. Once I arrived I had no car. Now, I was at a major city so I was able to do fine on public transit. However, I had to research that carefully before I left as even in major cities public transit can be dicey in the US.

      Every time I've looked at trains for a family trip over moderate distances it never made any sense at all. For anything other than the NE Corridor a train ride can take more than double the time of driving, at a cost of $100 EACH WAY PER PASSENGER in COACH. Why would I spend $800 to replace an 11 hour car ride with a 24 hour train ride, even if I didn't need a car when I arrived?

    153. Re:A high speed railway by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      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'm not sure what you mean by "US's only train".

      There's also Caltrain, and presumably other states/areas have their own train systems (besides the well known subways that is).

      I compared fares for a similar distance to yours -- San Francisco to Tamien station, and that would be $31 total round trip for two adults. (Of course, multi-fare tickets or passes would be less per trip.) Time looks like about 1:35. (If I had chosen one closer stop, there are "Baby Bullet" trains that go a few times a day in about an hour.)

    154. Re:A high speed railway by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean:

      The US has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Americans are actually wealthy.

    155. Re:A high speed railway by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      In *some* situations, true. In most situations, this is unfortunately untrue. I live in Sheffield. I have a disabled rail card. I have a diesel Astra that gets 80mpg. Taking the tram that's right in front of my door, straight to the station, then train to Bristol, then parents pick me up to go to their house. Total time, 4 hours one way, cost £60 return including disabled discount brought in advance.

      Use my own car, £18 return, 3 hours one way door to door. Including traffic. Driving at 60mph. Go figure!

      I used to use the train sometimes but since buying my Astra, I now never use the train. Funny, I buy a green car in an attempt to reduce my CO2 footprint, and it just serves to actually *increase* my CO2 footprint! However, my Astra emits 119g/km so with 5 people in my car, that's £4 each person by car, and emits less CO2 than the train, and train costs a whopping £300!

    156. Re:A high speed railway by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      We could also do things like genetically modify food to make it grow better (faster, in areas usually inhospitable to crops)... but people are nuttily against things like that (and nuclear power).

    157. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh try and be nice to the poor yank now. When facts aren't allowed in their schools ("Today, kids, we're studying biology, so turn your textbooks to the chapter on the Garden of Eden...") or politics ("SADDAM HAS NUKES! HEALTHCARE IS FOR COMMIES!"), you can't really blame the chap for failing to get to grips with using them when debating on the internets.

    158. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking LOL at someone trying to dish out pompous lectures on the relationship between trade and peace, and DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THE SECOND WORLD WAR STARTED. you couldn't fucking make it up, could you?

    159. Re:A high speed railway by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I've seen People of Wallmart. I know they can be wrong. Very, very wrong....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    160. Re:A high speed railway by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      china makes shit

      Hundreds of millions of Wal-Mart shoppers can't be wrong.

      Depends if you put the accent on the second or third word.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    161. Re:A high speed railway by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      That same sort of thing does happen in limited parts of the US (mostly the northeast, which is older and denser, since larger amounts of the cities predate cars). I live in Boston, which is relatively compact, and you're likely to run into all sorts of people on the subway. Even more so in New York, and to some extent a few other places like Chicago.

      On the other hand, I also have family in Detroit and Cleveland, and since I don't drive, I basically end up unable to leave the house and do anything without waiting for someone else to get a ride with them. Everything is enormously spread out, public transportation is nearly nonexistent, and most people wouldn't be caught dead on it if they had the choice.

      Kind of a weird contrast. Not surprisingly, given my lack of driving, I prefer European-style cities (whether actually in Europe or not) to the newer car-based US type.

    162. Re:A high speed railway by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      That's a really good point; I hadn't considered that. Another downside to HSR in the US is that you're likely to have to do an environmental study for each county the rail passes through, even though it's only a 50' wide stripe of land. Labor costs are definitely a major factor in first world countries.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    163. Re:A high speed railway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hardly surprising countries that are occupied by military force - as France was, by the beginning of 1941 - do a lot of trade with their occupiers.

      After 1945, on the other hand, France and Germany decided to establish strong trade links specifically to keep the peace. That resolution culminated in the European Coal & Steel Community, the first forerunner to the modern European Union.

    164. Re:A high speed railway by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Through some of the most politically unstable regions of the world. What could possibly go wrong?

      Are you talking about the route to the north or to the south of the Caspian. North of the Caspian it would be a relatively simple task most of the way of adding high-speed lines in parallel with the existing railway routes. (No ; I'm not talking about the Trans-Siberian Railway, because it doesn't exist. Despite me having travelled several legs of it's non-existence.)
      Going south of the Caspian ... much bigger task. As a political idea - that would be a bigger win ; but in terms of getting on a train in Beijing and getting off it 2 days later (less corrections for time zone) in Warsaw, then the northern route would be the way to bet.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    165. Re:A high speed railway by aqk · · Score: 0

      Religious nutbags become ineffectual when you introduce prosperity and equality to their followers at the expense of meddling, war and neocolonialism.

      Umm.. I assume you are not talking about the good ol' USA, and its rich (perhaps ex-)Republican "tea-baggers", and their associated baptist bagmen...
      ,,,
      "Religious nutbags"... Oh, sweet America. LOL!

    166. Re:A high speed railway by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I understood that, and in a reply to him I mentioned that the issue is not whether or not we have high-speed rail between metropolitan areas, but that we must have reliable, cheap intra-city public transportation for high-speed interconnects to be of any value.

      I wouldn't care that I can get to a city fast if there wasn't a way to get around once I got there. A car covers both long- and short-distance
      travel - high speed trains only solve half of the public transportation conundrum.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    167. Re:A high speed railway by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I meant that for ubiquitous train travel within the US, Amtrak is the only choice.

      I'm well aware of MARTA (MD) and PATH (NJ)., as well as the upstart VRE (VA).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    168. Re:A high speed railway by seekertom · · Score: 1

      ya know, mate, i'll bet there are lots of folks just like you in GB, also others all around the world, who have brains, intelligence, etc. we even have a few like that here in America. ...and as one collective group of very smart people, we are all in very deep shite! why is that? do ya ever wonder? my mom usta tell me, "son, (that's what she called me-- on a good day) if yer so darned smart, why ain'cha rich?" so i'm askin it of you... if WE are so damn smart, why are we having this conversation? we come from the same stock, back a bit, and over the years have grown as nations, side by side. in every sense of the word, we're brothers. yet something has gone terribly wrong. the govts of the world seem to be hell-bent on this thing called 'global domination', ie 'one world govt'. and here we sit, thumbs up our collective arses, befuddled by it all. nobody seems to have a clue about how to 'fix' it. only thing i know is this... all the crap that's dumped on us yanks 9see above posts) hasn't been because WE the PEOPLE are shites... somebody's pulling the strings, making us look bad. (anything like that happening over there???) wait a sec... here's an idea... information. that's it. you and i exchange ideas, and others react to them. lots of them. we learn from what they have to say. we all get our ducks in a row, throw out the rascals and get on with life. but first we need a consensus.... we need to ALL understand exactly what the problem is here. maybe this here internet thingie will finally have some value... information hi-way, huh? i probably speak for a lot of my fellow Americans when i say i'm embarassed at how things have worked out for us. we're better than that! so are you. is it time yet to get our arses in gear and start racking up a few points for 'our' team? do ya have a clue what i'm trying so blunderingly to say??? thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

  2. Not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullet train, as bullet-proof train.

  3. This will be great for troop transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know... after the Chinese army invades.

  4. That is just really cool. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe. Maybe it's a bit of a vanity project. But you have to admit, it's pretty damn cool. I think it would make more sense if the rail connection were not high speed, since most of what's transported will be freight, and moving freight at 350k/h is a big waste of energy. But whatever, it's freaking cool!

    1. Re:That is just really cool. by Meshach · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    2. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to move troops around easily, no doubt.

    3. Re:That is just really cool. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:That is just really cool. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.

      That's probably true, but with so many stations in-between, nobody will have to.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:That is just really cool. by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I'd sooner go by rail than air anyday - I've been on too many planes, they never get any more comfortable. On the train you can put your feet back, relax, eat off a real table, sleep lying down, go for a stroll - the benefits far outweigh the trip time. Something like this railroad puts Beijing on my list of destinations that I would plan to visit casually once in my life, and hopefully works the other way round for people in China wanting to have a nosey around London.

      I sense a deep wave of cynicism about the safety of traveling through central asia, but the majority of ordinary people don't wish harm on anyone. So there's a few loonies - so what? You have to live in spite of the gun toting loonies, not in fear of them... and more to the point, how do you think China would react if some merry band of robbers tried to mess with their pet project?

    6. Re:That is just really cool. by zondag · · 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, 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.

    7. Re:That is just really cool. by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      It sounds strange to me... apart from the financial costs (building the railways means you have to borrow a lot of money and pay interest for it, or opportunity costs for not using it everywhere else), HSR is usually not a cheap transport medium. Usually the cheaper is ship, and only for expensive, urgent products (i.e. some kinds of food) is transported by plane. I cannot think of anything that is both so urgent and so massively produced that would justify this project (if you have any idea please tell me).

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    8. Re:That is just really cool. by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Economies of scale. It beats the heck out of sending by ship and it's cheaper than air flight.It's going to mean a lot for China's trade.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    9. Re:That is just really cool. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      It's about 5800 miles straight line distance between Beijing and Paris. Assuming a best case scenario of a completely straight rail line (it wouldn't be... it would probably be at least 20% longer) and a constant velocity of 150 mph (it wouldn't be), you'd be on that train for about 39 hours. Air France can do it in 11.

      Even being in cattle class, I can't imagine wanting to take the train over an airplane in such a scenario--and the reality would certainly be worse.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    10. Re:That is just really cool. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the above should have said, "Shanghai to Paris," not, "Beijing to Paris." Beijing is only about 5,000 miles. Take about 5 hours off the travel time for the train, and an hour and change for the airplane. It's still a no brainer, IMHO.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:That is just really cool. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      IMO if china is sensible they will design this line in such a way that a mixture of train speeds can be readily accomodated.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:That is just really cool. by godrik · · Score: 1

      il would be something like 50 hours from paris beijing considering the track of the peiking paris track : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_to_Paris . The actual trip would probably be more direct.

      Flying the same distance is 10 hours on direct flight and 15/20 with one connection.

      Taking the train you will avoid the jetlag and can have more room to work or do what ever in the train. You could also stop during the trip to see the tajmahal.

      We don't know how much it will cost, if the price is comparable to flying, I might do that since I HATE flying.

    13. Re:That is just really cool. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Maybe China doesn't trust the US Navy?

    14. Re:That is just really cool. by snarkh · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people have taken Trans-Siberian railway from Europe to China. In fact, it has been operating for about 100 years!

    15. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends how pervasive will be security screening at airports in 10 years.
      if it beats dealing with the airline companies, it may become interesting :)

    16. Re:That is just really cool. by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1
      You forget a lot of stuff. For example, you are going from Hamburg to Shanghai, which means changing planes in Frankfurt, in best case. Then you can't sleep well on the airplane.

      So an 11 hour flight basically takes as long as ferry or train trip that starts in the evening and arrives in the morning after 36 hours. They both take one day of your life.Then time-zones complicate things, of course.

    17. Re:That is just really cool. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Microchips.

    18. Re:That is just really cool. by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      On the train you can put your feet back, relax, eat off a real table, sleep lying down, go for a stroll - the benefits far outweigh the trip time.

      But have you ever tried to do this on a Chinese train?

      Well, that was my initial thought, but they will probably offer European class service too.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    19. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would ordinarily never bother going to China, cause there's not quite enough there that interests me to be worth the visa hassle. I'd love to see Europe, but I don't much enjoy air travel, so it's currently not worth me making the journey unless I plan to stay a year or more.

      But I do enjoy rail travel, and find railways interesting in and of themselves. I would be all over a rail link from China to Europe if there was a reasonable passenger service at a reasonable cost.

    20. Re:That is just really cool. by owlnation · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe. Maybe it's a bit of a vanity project.

      Lots of people, especially students and independent travelers, take long distance train journeys from, for example, the EU into Russia -- the Trans-Siberian Railway. People will use it. It will be a far more interesting journey than traveling by plane.

      Esepcially due to the generally increasing hell that is traveling by plane, from all the security theater.

    21. Re:That is just really cool. by tftp · · Score: 1

      you'd be on that train for about 39 hours. Air France can do it in 11.

      Another comment already mentioned that you'd probably have to land somewhere in between. But even ignoring that, after the airplane trip you go directly to bed and sleep for another 12 hours because you are tired, hungry, and your legs (or back) are in pain. You wake up and find your clock shifted relative to the local time.

      On the other hand, assume that the train trip takes 39 hours (board at 6pm on Monday, disembark at 9am on Wednesday by your wristwatch). You will arrive relaxed, refreshed, well fed, and ready to go and do whatever you need to do. You lose Tuesday, but you lose entire day in the air trip too. What you gain here is convenience of sleeping on a real bed for two nights - sleeping as much as you want, reading news, working on your laptop, eating real food in the restaurant, and watching the scenery too. You arrive at convenient time, and your body has an extra day to adapt to new time zones as you cross them.

      As someone else also mentioned, air travel requires fuels with high energy - currently only oil-based fuels meet the requirement. You can expect their price to go up, to infinity (unless abiotic origin of oil is proven and new oil fields are found.) However a train can run on electricity, since it doesn't need to carry the fuel on board. Electricity can be generated by renewable sources, and you can expect its price to go down as we develop better solar panels, better nuclear reactors and possibly even orbital solar power generators. Trains are sustainable; airplanes are not (until new fuels or batteries are invented.)

    22. Re:That is just really cool. by chilvence · · 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 to get the whole dirty buisness over with as quickly as possible so you can get back to whatever dull existence you have back home?

      I've been lucky enough to be introduced to sailing in my lifetime, and let me tell you, when you spend 3 months in a tin can travelling from Ecuador to Brisbane (thats about 8000 miles at jogging pace, incidentally), and really see everything in between, you really learn to appreciate just how vast the world is, and how every other form of transport trivialises the distance.

      By all means, enjoy your buisness class 'convenience' travel and the smug feeling of comfort it gives you, but its not for me! It's for the same philosophical reason I stick with a bicycle when all the other people in my town punish themselves day in day out with parking, petrol prices and standstill traffic. Have fun with that is all I'm saying! I can't think of anything more boring!

    23. Re:That is just really cool. by pydev · · Score: 1

      You don't need HSR for moving freight around. HSR only makes sense for transporting people.

      And while few people will want to go the entire distance at once, I expect it will greatly enhance commerce and communications for cities within a few thousand kilometers.

    24. Re:That is just really cool. by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      The Chinese high-speed trains are already at the European level of confort.

    25. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, plenty of Europeans (especially young people) travel all the way to China by train and then fly back home. It takes time but is also an interesting experience since there's so much to see along the way.

    26. Re:That is just really cool. by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I've done Ha Noi to Sapa on an old overnight sleeper years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience - that was back when I was about ten though. I'm sure had I been older, I would have had a much more acceptable level of jadedness.

    27. Re:That is just really cool. by mqduck · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Property is theft.
    28. Re:That is just really cool. by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Like others here have said, I'm incredibly perplexed that they're planning to use this for freight, unless they're just planning to build a particularly straight and well-graded line on which freight trains can run at their maximum speed throughout the whole length (which is still well under 100mph).

      Various HSR experiments have concluded that there's no way to transport freight at high speeds without it being obscenely expensive or dangerous. This reeks of a vanity project -- a direct freight line to Europe seems sensible enough, although this makes absolutely no sense as an application for HSR.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    29. Re:That is just really cool. by wylacot · · Score: 1

      Mercantilism. Just what the British did with the 13 colonies. I believe it incited a war. They got our cotton, we got their finished materials. We get Chinese products, we fill the containers with our recyclable materials. They send the materials back in the form of consumer items.

    30. Re:That is just really cool. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      That does seem to be what the article says, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why pay the huge premium for high speed rail lines and then use them for freight?

      Interestingly, Wikipedia ("High-speed rail") says:
      In China there are two grades of high speed lines. Firstly slower lines that run at speeds of between 200 and 250 km/h (120 and 160 mph) and have freight as well as passenger trains. Secondly, [[High-speed rail in China|passenger dedicated high speed rail lines operate at top speeds above 300 km/h (190 mph).

      So maybe they really do intend to run 200+km/hr freight trains. I suppose it would make sense for perishable goods (mostly fruit) which you'd otherwise have to airfreight. But I still don't see that transporting fresh fruit could justify the cost of this network.

      I'm also puzzled as to the routes. They talk about a London to Beijing line, and a 'through Russia to Germany' as separate projects. A line which goes north of the Caspian would go through Russia and probably to Germany, so if they are separate, it sounds like London/Beijing is going south of the Caspian which means through Iran (political instability, hostility to England) and Turkey (mountains, earthquakes, and needing to cross the Bosphorus - although the web tells me this has already been bridged.)

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    31. Re:That is just really cool. by ap7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are right. And freight won't be transported at 350 kph. Freights run at much slower speeds because the wagons are too heavy and at high speeds can destroy the track. On the other hand, passenger coaches are much lighter and can go much faster.

    32. Re:That is just really cool. by laron · · Score: 1

      You don't have to go all the way. Traveling from Western Europe to Turkey for example could be a nice trip on the Orient Express.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    33. Re:That is just really cool. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      You think that maybe China will use these trains to ship opium to England? Ha, payback is a bitch!

    34. Re:That is just really cool. by julian_t · · Score: 1

      Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.

      Maybe not, but I live in London and sometime have to go to Shanghai for a few weeks for work. I would be on that train in a flash... what a great way to travel.

    35. Re:That is just really cool. by gnalle · · Score: 1

      An average freight ship sails at a speed between 20 and 40 kilometers per hour so the train is ten times faster. On the other hand train transport must be more expensive and more polluting. After all you need a lot of trains to replace a single container vessel.

    36. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much more are you willing you pay for the luxery of travelling with train? In Europe flying is chaeper that train travel.

    37. Re:That is just really cool. by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      and a constant velocity of 150 mph (it wouldn't be),

      Why so slow? HSR is generally being designed today for 200-250 mph. And on this route, on all new track and with stops fairly far apart I see no reason why that shouldn't be sustained virtually all the time. That gives you 20-25 hours to Paris to Beijing and 25-30 hours on to Shanghai, city centre to city centre.

    38. Re:That is just really cool. by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      I'm curious - does anyone know what fraction of air travel prices are oil? I'd have a hard time imagining it being more than 50%, and obviously if it's low enough then "dwindling oil" won't have a particularly big effect.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    39. Re:That is just really cool. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      and moving freight at 350k/h is a big waste of energy. But whatever, it's freaking cool!

      Freight trains generally don't run at 350k/h, mainly because they tend to be a hell of a lot heavier than passenger trains. But a train line across Europe and Asia would follow a route much shorter than any of the major shipping lanes, which would make transport quicker.

    40. Re:That is just really cool. by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      You don't need take it the whole way. At 300Km/h average, a 1000km trip might be faster by rail than by air (city center to city center and counting airport delays).

      I've ridden Chinese high speed rail - its a nice system, as good as the European or Japanese, and somewhat faster.

    41. Re:That is just really cool. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Microchips aren't urgent. It doesn't matter if the batch you will send tomorrow arrives in 3 months, as the batch you sent 3 months ago arrives tomorrow (apologies for randomly made up numbers). If you have massively high volume stuff, you just ship it in volume using a pipeline approach.

    42. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone else also mentioned, air travel requires fuels with high energy - currently only oil-based fuels meet the requirement.

      Currently, yes, but the writing is on the wall and airliner producers are working on hydrogen-fueled jets. Hydrogen is, of course, just an energy storage medium, where source of said energy may be renewable as well.
      "Airbus project envisions hydrogen-fueled jet"

    43. Re:That is just really cool. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      There have been experimental train runs from China to Germany for stuff that's too expensive to transport by plane, but needs to get there sooner than by ship. Article -- it's twice as fast as by ship, and cheaper for goods that originate in China's interior. That's the old, regular rail.

      However, a high speed (>250km/h) freight railway must add a lot of cost compared to improving the existing track to, say, 150km/h running and sorting out the problems with international crossings etc.

      (Of course, there are already the Trans-Siberian and Trans-Manchurian Railways. It's already possible to travel from Moscow to Beijing, Vladivostok or Pyongyang, in around a week.)

    44. Re:That is just really cool. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Letters/parcels trains in the UK can run at 100mph (160km/h) (example). Bulk stuff (rocks, grain etc) can travel at 75mph (120km/h). This is just normal railway equipment though. Building a line like that (or a bit better) seems entirely reasonable, as does improving the existing lines (perhaps with some new bits).

      I don't see how making it high speed will be economical either.

    45. Re:That is just really cool. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The trains will almost certainly be electric, so they're only as polluting as your fuel source. Container ships are incredibly polluting: there are very few (if any?) controls on their emissions for a start, and they use the lowest grade of fuel.

      Of course, the slower the train the less pollution it will cause.

    46. Re:That is just really cool. by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've been dreaming about that journey for a while now...

      --
      It is what it is.
    47. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.

      I took the train from Europe to Beijing last year. (Trans-siberian/trans-mongolian) It was great fun, there were lots of people on the train (russians, brits, dutch, french,...) it took a week but i'd love to do it again.

    48. Re:That is just really cool. by Smuttley · · Score: 1

      The Trans-Manchurian and Trans-Mongolian Railways let you do just that.

      They connect with the Trans-Siberian railway in Siberia and travel to Beijing. The first through north east china and the second through Mongolia.

      This means you can get a Train to take you all the way from Moscow to Beijing without having to change. It takes over 6 days and is a great journey.

      When the train reaches china they pick it up and change the bogies (wheels) as the gauge on the tracks is different.

      I totally recommend this trip, although rather than do the whole 6 day trip in one go you may prefer to stop off in Siberia and Mongolia for a few days.

    49. Re:That is just really cool. by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      I doubt the Chinese will be borrowing money to build these rails...by all accounts, they are awash with far too much cash they've siphoned from the West (via Wal-mart and others). They're desperately looking for ways to use some of that money to quiet the demands that they re-balance their currency against the world markets.

      Large container ships are only viable as long as there is cheap fuel to run them. There have been a lot of reports that we have reached, or even passed, peak oil, which means fuel will only get more expensive as we go on. By building rail lines now China is opening up its options for the future. Today's trains are essentially electric vehicles powered by on-board diesel generators; if worse comes to worst those diesel generators can be replaced with wood fired steam versions.

      I've read comments here that say high speed rail is too expensive for freight. Keep in mind that just because the rail lines are designed for high speed doesn't mean the trains have to run that fast

    50. Re:That is just really cool. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      One thing I wonder about with this new line is that afaict unlike the trans-siberian which afaict goes direct from russia to china. So western europeans wanting to go to china on that route would need a visa for china, russia and possiblly some country in eastern europe (not sure what their policies on travel for europeans are)

      This new line will go through a load of countries so IMO if it's going to be practical it needs a system to ensure that passengers can transit the line without getting huge numbers of visas.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    51. Re:That is just really cool. by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Lead times consume capital by having a large amount of parts in "inventory" if you fill a container ship full I7-920s thats a heck of a lot of money tied up for 3 months(in your example). If you could make the leadtime for the same shipment 3 days, and cost less than 10x more, i train i'd wager is close to only 2-3x that of a boat, as well as less likely to loose the whole shipment.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    52. Re:That is just really cool. by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      I just have to post and say +1 and congratulations! You nailed it in my opinion.

      Let me put it this way; I spent $6000 on getting my pilots license about 10 years ago now. In the last 5 years I have racked up less than 20 hours behind the yoke of a plane because I realized that I was far less interested in getting places than I had thought, and decided that I preferred the journey.

      Two years ago I bought my third motorbike. I spent about $12,000 on that so I could do just that; enjoy the journey. I put 300 miles on it, yesterday alone. A car is good, the bike is better :)

    53. Re:That is just really cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read a few studies considering the cost benefit analysis of high speed trains. If you are not careful, it could end up running at a loss, subsidized by the government. China is spending a lot of money on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure is extremely expensive. This could turn into a white elephant that the poor Chinese people will end up paying for.
          This is one of the problems with autocratic rule. A lot of money spent on vanity products which will ultimately cripple the economy.
         

    54. Re:That is just really cool. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The new opium war is in Afghanistan. The taliban had a cut off flow for some reason or another. The cartels/CIA didn't like that. So, a couple of phone calls later...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    55. Re:That is just really cool. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you say, but it has little to do with urgency.

  5. Track width by guruevi · · Score: 3, 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).

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Track width by thue · · Score: 4, Informative

      An image illustrating the track widths across the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_gauge_world.png

      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.

    2. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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).

      If you knew what a "third world country" actually was, you would know that is quite impossible.

    3. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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).

      I wonder what the US boosters will have to say without their most basic "but the USA is a big country" line of defense.

    4. Re:Track width by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, 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). Or they could just not connect to the Russian rail network and run all new tracks (maybe necessary for high-speed anyway).

      They have quite a job on their hands, that's for sure.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    5. Re:Track width by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is a big deal to change trains when changing continents. You do that sometimes when transiting in aircraft anyway.

    6. Re:Track width by longacre · · Score: 3, Interesting

      while the US will become a third world country (unless the US decides to invest in itself).

      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.

    7. Re:Track width by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the track width across different countries is going to work.
      Actually track gauge is pretty standardised. Western Europe, china and the US are all dominated by "standard gauge" (4ft8.5in). Eastern Europe seems to be a mixture of standard gauge and Russian gauge

      Given that both china and western europe use standard gauge I would expect this line to be standard gauge and any countries using something else will either just have to live with the new line being a different gauge from everything else or have their section of the new line laid in double gauge (however double gauge track increases costs significantly).

      If I remember correctly, that was a similar problem when connecting the UK to Europe.
      That was a loading gauge (the maximum dimensions of the train to safely traverse the line) issue. Normal European trains are too big to traverse British lines but the smaller Eurostar trains can run fine on both.

      As shown by the Eurostar case loading gauge is less of an issue. You can design trains to run on the smallest loading gauge they will encounter and/or build new lines to the largest loading gauge of trains they will encounter.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Track width by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that isn't completely true in Australia. We use standard gauge in NSW, and for most interstate links, but Victoria and Tasmania use broad gauge, and Queensland and Western Australia use narrow gauge. Loading gauges are different, too: for example Victorian suburban trains have less width to the platform, but may bulge out over the platform and have protruding rearview mirrors, while NSW trains are wider to the platform but have flush vertical sides with only small protrusions.

    9. Re:Track width by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Because building a subway under one of the most densely populated cities is totally easy?

      It's too bad we can't just grab all the Chinese in Chinatown and give them a few hundred dollars a month to construct our tunnel for us, yes, we're really screwed.

    10. Re:Track width by longacre · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that, because the MTA actually awarded a $100 million contract to a Chinese-government-owned construction company to build the new line's ventilation system.

    11. Re:Track width by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Because building a subway under one of the most densely populated cities is totally easy?

      Well... number of subway lines completed in NYC in the last 10 years (or for that matter 20): zero

      Number of metro lines completed in Beijing in the last 10 years: seven.

      Building the subway is comparatively easy, even in a metropolis. Getting eminent domain and municipal and state and enviromental and safety approval in hundreds of lawsuits... will bog you down for decades. Despotism - gets shit done.

    12. Re:Track width by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      The new trains won't run on old rail ways anyway. So it doesn't matter.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    13. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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).

      there is no need for the 1 train to run across the entire china/europe/russia/south asia network

      what they plan to do is to simply allow the train to converge i.e a trading/good transfer pt (thus that station would have the china railtrack n the host country track / allow the goods/trade/material xfer

    14. Re:Track width by BhaKi · · Score: 2, Funny

      We'll take your post into account when we build our next generation train link from India to Australia.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    15. Re:Track width by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Getting eminent domain and municipal and state and enviromental and safety approval in hundreds of lawsuits... will bog you down for decades. Despotism - gets shit done.

      Those who've read a bit of history know that this is the argument used in the '30s by Mussolini's admirers. And that other guy a few years later. Whatsisname, the german dude....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:Track width by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Right now, the solution is to change the wheelbase under the wagons on the borders of Belarus and Ukraine, but it takes an hour at best (rail carts are no formula one bolids).
      But if you bild a whole new railway, you can standartize on track width or build a Dual gauge in the first place.

    17. Re:Track width by Jenming · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the day when the countries of Europe and Asia are all at peace with each other and can work together to build an economic powerhouse.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    18. Re:Track width by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? "If this becomes cheap enough for car travel..." What Londoner would want to drive a car around Beijing? Or Delhi? Still, I'd love to see Eurasia become a unified economic powerhouse! An analogous situation in the US would probably be if it decides to invest in North America. I can see the headlines now: "Washington bails out Mexican railway industry! Senators cry foul!"

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
    19. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems you know little of railways, less of Eurasian history, and nothing about US investments.

      and now back to our story...

    20. Re:Track width by pydev · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia is wrong; the term "third world" has a different meaning now from the one that Sauvy originally intended:

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/third+world

    21. Re:Track width by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      The US, UK, Europe, China, and most of what we consider the "western world" use the same rail gauge (1435mm).

      However, the UK's loading gauge (the biggest train that can fit through a tunnel or alongside a platform) is a bit smaller than what is typically seen in Europe or America (although passenger trains in the Eastern US have a similar de-facto limitation imposed upon them by the small Hudson River tunnels)

      Similarly, the European rail system contains a mess of differing and incompatible signaling and communication systems. A standard has been set, and the rail systems are gradually moving toward standardization (typically as old equipment is retired, because although standardization and compatibility is a good thing, it's not a particularly high priority at the moment)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    22. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you know what ? they were both right.

    23. Re:Track width by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      ....until some other dude decided he was fed up and was going to beat the living shit out of those two, and the other guy too.

    24. Re:Track width by molecular · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yeah, also: did you know trains switch sides inside the tunnel under the channel. After all, continental Europe drives on the wrong side of the road.

    25. Re:Track width by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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).

      If the new, Chinese railway is to be a high-speed line, then it will have to be all new engineering on a new alignment. You can't really convert old railways; they tend to curve too much. If it's a separate line, then the sponsors get to choose the track gauge.

      There was no problem with track-gauge difference between the UK and north-west Europe. Most European countries chose the nearest metric equivalent of 4' 8.5" when they started with railways. There used to be a discrepancy of ~5mm (IIRC; not sure about the figure) but it was within the tolerances anyway. Late in the 20th centuary, British railways formally adopted the UIC track gauge - the metricized 4' 8.5" - as the national standard.

      There is, however, a big discrepancy in the loading gauge - the space left between and inside structures for the trains. British loading gauge is smaller than UIC standard for most lines, for historical reasons. Recently, since the channel tunnel opened, some British lines have been opened out to larger loading gauge to help freight interchange. And the recent high-speed line from London to the tunnel is to the proper loading gauge.

    26. Re:Track width by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Yes, a benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government, if one can find a benevolent dictator who is not swayed by the fleeting passions of the public. That's a big if however and not something one can rely on for centuries, so we deal with what we have and what works.

    27. Re:Track width by eples · · Score: 1

      Hey man, the 2nd Avenue line is long overdue. People have to walk a very far distance to catch the Lexington Ave. line.

      Why it took 40 years probably has to do with the MTA and the City itself taking turns going bankrupt every decade.

      As far as actually useful rail projects go, the 2nd Avenue line absolutely is one.

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
    28. Re:Track width by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

      and you know what ? they were both right.

      Nope.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    29. Re:Track width by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      allright, I'll bite..

      Let's compare, shall we?

      Beijing Metro:
      147 Stations, 142 miles of track (no idea how much of that is revenue track), 39 years old. BTW, even when all of the new lines under construction are completed they will only bring the totals to ~280miles of track and 301 stations.

      NY Subway:
      468 stations, 656 miles of revenue track (842 miles of total track), the underground portion dates back 106 years, the oldest structural component of the system is 125 years old and some of the rights of ways are older still.

      Comparing the 2 in terms of line expansion is like comparing IBM and some tech startup and exclaiming how IBM is screwed because the tech startup had 100% growth in the previous and IBM had 1%.

      The NYC subway is a much older, more mature system, additions are not going to happen at the same pace as a newer, younger, significantly smaller system.

      BTW, dictatorial policies aside, I'll also point out that the beijing metro closes at night and the subway doesnt, which probably makes construction easier.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  6. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this is how they plan to deal with their sex ratio imbalance. They are cumming to steal ur yummy wimminz!

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, no kidding. With Eastern European countries having ratio of women per men >1.0, there may be more of the mixed weddings coming. The Tolla-Chen Railroad?

  7. US is in trouble by nine-times · · 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.

    1. Re:US is in trouble by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually boats are WAY more economical and with polar ice melts the northern passage is now open enough of the year to be economically viable. If you need very fast transport when the northern passage is available there's always airplane (Ford was flying engines from Cleveland to an assembly plant in Canada so it can be doable for items with a high enough value add).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:US is in trouble by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The high speed rail nets in the US are not for freight, but for passengers. The costs and volumes of passengers for the routes don't make sense.

    3. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our economy is going down the tubes.

      That's e-commerce for you.

    4. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you don't understand how 'merica works! We know how to drive you know? Don't need no commie guberment rail road rather than good old detroit muscle.

      Say, could you pass me another Natty light while you're up?

    5. Re:US is in trouble by assemblerex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the Chinese just bulldoze your house if they need the land. We have something called property rights unless you live in Connecticut.

    6. Re:US is in trouble by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We aren't even at the level of efficient high speed rail project designs. The plans in California are idiotically circuitous and discontinuous. We see such projects as opportunities to scam state and federal treasuries, not as useful and durable infrastructure to evolve and develop our economy. Soon Chinese media will be talking about us as an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

      Are we just going to let that happen? [That's a rhetorical question, BTW]

    7. Re:US is in trouble by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Not for inland destinations.

    8. Re:US is in trouble by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Eminent Domain now extends to corporations.

    9. Re:US is in trouble by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You don't transport goods on high speed rail. And why anyone would want to take a train through some of the most unstable countries in the world is beyond me. Sounds like a terrible waste of money. You talk about the US doing it but do you have ANY concept on how much high speed rail costs to build in the US? The high speed rail being built between Detroit and Chicago will cost over $2billion, the cost to build a line from LA to NY would be multiple trillions, guessing I would say 6-8 Trillion dollars. For that money we could buy everyone in the US a plane ticket and make planes the burn pure corn oil and still save trillions.

      High speed rail is a non-starter in the US, construction costs are massive and the property costs even more. High speed rail works in much of europe because the lines are built on fairly flat plains (with only major cities connected and short distances between) with a few tunnels through the alps but the topography and distances in the US make high speed rail vastly uneconomical, in fact for freight it would be far cheaper to load it on a boat and sail it around the continent. Planes moving passengers around the US are hundreds of times cheaper both in cost to operate and cost to construct. Planes also need far less maintenance. Do you have any idea how much money the spend in Europe to maintain those high speed rail lines per mile? High speed rail makes sense in Europe for precisely the same reasons it doesn't make sense in the US. There are large cities fairly close together such that air travel doesn't make much sense in that the delays to take off and land are easily bypassed with rail. Those same short distances make maintenance cheaper and travel times quicker by rail and many of the large cities are constructed in the plains near the coast, the large inland cities are limited and easily connected to. The distance between major cities in the US can easily exceed the largest separation in Europe.

      It immensely frustrating to compare the US and Europe transportation networks with such a broad stroke. There are many many factors why the US doesn't have workable high speed rail and most of it is geographic. Had high speed rail been economical the major rail companies would have built the lines themselves. Even as it is the only Amtrak lines in the US that are profitable are a couple short connections on the east coast. The rest of Amtrak's operations lose 2 billion a year. High Speed rail would only exacerbate those losses. Unless you are willing to double or triple your taxes don't suggest High speed rail in the US, it's simply not economical at our geographic scale.

    10. Re:US is in trouble by mcfedr · · Score: 1

      Surely if you build a railway from san fransico to new york, and its a 3 hour journey, the only non cost effective part is that the airlines lobbying your government lose all their business and that it would take some investment, without short term profits, which is lets face it, all that matters these days...

    11. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 4, 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

    12. Re:US is in trouble by mcfedr · · Score: 5, Informative

      the rest of the world already see you like that

    13. Re:US is in trouble by skine · · Score: 1

      Try shipping something in mass quantities from NYC to Denver.

      In this case, boats are absurd, planes are expensive and trains are slow.

      $10 says they go for trains.

    14. Re:US is in trouble by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: it takes more fuel to travel 10 miles to a shoestore to buy a pair of nikes in a sedan than it takes to ship that pair of shoes from China to the US by water. Economies of scale are a wonderful thing.

      Rail is the 2nd most economical form of transportation, but if there's a water link, it still sucks in comparison. The rail could be economical for targeting landlocked locations like deep Ukraine and Russia with regards to freight, but the cities it mentioned in the article hint at passenger travel. It would be extremely economical for passenger travel, and I could see it taking off if they did it right. In 10 years, gas will likely cost a lot more so it'd be even better. Fares could be competitive at half the price of flight by then.

    15. Re:US is in trouble by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      the rest of the world already see you like that

      Really? The rest of the world sees the USA as

      an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

      I somehow find that hard to believe.

    16. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2564 miles at 270 mph (China's maglev speed) = 9.5 hours assuming no stops in between. That's significantly longer than 3 hours.

      Due to drag, friction, sonic booms, terrain, etc, rail will never be able to compete on sheer speed with air over long distances even if it may win on total throughput. When time is the critical factor, air will win. When bulk is the critical factor, high speed rail MAY win depending on the political and logistical problems that arise, but it isn't the slam dunk you'd make it out to be.

    17. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason that we couldn't use a high speed rail system for freight, too?

    18. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 4, 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.

    19. Re:US is in trouble by Diagoras · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And are Europe and Russia, literally dying out, doing any better? Or China with massive internal problems not to mention ringed with hostile rivals? India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?

      America's been through worse and I'm confident that she'll come out all right in the end. God help us if I'm wrong.

      --
      I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
    20. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think this is bad, wait until we go another 20 years without investing any money in infrastructure.

    21. Re:US is in trouble by coaxial · · Score: 1

      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.

      Hey, you must be talking about Cal HSR! The amount of absurdity when dealing with NIMBYs in the supposably progressive Bay Area never ceases to amaze.

      You're right that the US has let our infrastructure fall behind. The North American electric grid can be taken out by a squirrel. Our roads are in desperate need of repair. Our telcom networks are behind Europe and Asia. Quite honestly, we've rested on our laurels for 50 years, and we've seen that national infrastructure is too important to be left to Wall Street. (Indeed, it always has been.)

      That said, China might also be broke.

    22. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I was actually referring to the plans to put highspeed rail in the northeast, connecting Washington and Boston. It's part of the stimulus plan, but many teabaggers are trying to label it a waste of money.

    23. Re:US is in trouble by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Won't work for DELL and Apple.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    24. Re:US is in trouble by netsharc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      an incompetent, backward, authoritarian Third World oligarchy.

      I somehow find that hard to believe.

      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.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    25. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than 50% of the worlds population is within 50 miles of the ocean. How relevant are inland destinations? By the way, almost all of the rest are on major waterways.

    26. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US already conducts the bulk of their inland shipping via railway. Has for almost 140 years now.

    27. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the US, not other parts of the world. In the US, many, many large cities are inland: Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis, etc. (Yes, Chicago is on a big lake, but there's no passage from the Great Lakes to the ocean large enough for today's extremely large cargo ships to my knowledge.)

    28. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Cost, I would imagine. It probably takes a lot more fuel to hurtle a train at 200mph than at 75mph, due to friction and air resistance. And what's the big hurry? With passengers, travel time is obviously a big concern. With cargo, not so much. Why send it quickly if you can send it more cheaply by slowing the train down?

    29. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, 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 very comfortable with nice large seats, TONS of people would take these trains instead of planes, even if it added 50% to their travel time. Businesspeople in a big hurry would stick with the planes, but lots of others would go with the trains so they don't have such a miserable travel experience.

    30. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us more Mr. Economic Professor!!!

      Any more hyperbole? Oh noes...the sky is falling in the US!!!!

    31. Re:US is in trouble by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      If the train is more loaded it needs to move slower. If a slow train is using a line, it bogs down the other trains in the same line. You can transport not quite heavy stuff, but more weight means no more high speed.

    32. Re:US is in trouble by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Europe? Flat? Hah. I guess you never went to Switzerland. The US has a lot of flatland. The major problem is indeed population density and distance between urban centers. The US only has a couple of areas like that.

    33. Re:US is in trouble by snooo53 · · Score: 1

      Plus in the Midwest there is an obvious lack of North/South lines. I can't actually go anywhere on Amtrak without going through Chicago! Plus there's only one a day which makes it very hard to make connections. On your other point, yes we pour so much money into highways and a pittance into alternative forms (trains, rail, buses, bike trails). And for some reason every road construction project, no matter how minor, seems to cost anywhere from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

      --
      The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
    34. Re:US is in trouble by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      How did you come up with 6-8 Trillion?!

      Detroit to Chicago: 300 miles.
      LAX to JFK: 2800 miles.

      (2800/300)*2E9 USD = 18.7E9 USD. You are way off.

      The US federal government has loaned 80E9 USD to the GM, GMAC, and Chrysler in the last few years. You could have built Los Angeles to Seattle, Seattle to Boston, Boston to Atlanta, and NY to Los Angeles for that.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    35. Re:US is in trouble by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many lines are you going to build to handle the volume?

      A quick look on Expedia shows 28 non-stops between LAX and JFK. Say they are all wide-body and 200 passengers a flight, thats 5600 people alone right there on non-stops and 8 more one-stops, for another 1600.

      About the Shanghai maglev line.

      The Shanghai maglev cost 9.93 billion yuan to build. This total includes infrastructure capital costs such as manufacturing and construction facilities, and operational training. At 50 yuan per passenger and the current 7,000 passengers per day, income from the system is incapable of recouping the capital costs (including interest on financing) over the expected lifetime of the system, even ignoring operating costs[citation needed]. This changes if capacity utilization increases from the current 20%.

      It runs four times an hour fifteen hours a day, so it can carry about 120 people a load.

      So to replace one 777 from LAX to JFK its going to take two Shanghai maglevs. The LA to LV Maglev would cost $40 billion. So scale that to cross the US, how much would it cost to replace one 777 flight a day?

    36. Re:US is in trouble by kamapuaa · · Score: 1
      You seem to have a blind faith that everything the Chinese Communist party decides to do not only makes good sense for China, but also would make good sense for the United States. The country is still ranked around #100 on a GDP/person basis, infrastructure is still being planned out and over-developed by bureaucrats with no real connection to reality except "Great Leap Forward"-like goals, and if you don't think China is in a bubble economy you have another thing coming.

      High speed rail just isn't that good of an idea, in a country which already has a massive highway system, people already have cars, freight can already moved by rail, cities's public transportation isn't designed to handle a bunch of people being dropped off at the train station without a vehicle, and cities are small and far away.

      Sure I love railway transport in Europe or Japan, even here in China it's OK and getting better. But there's good reason it's never caught on in America or Australia or a number of other nations.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    37. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 3, 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.

    38. Re:US is in trouble by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...

    39. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      But there's good reason it's never caught on in America or Australia or a number of other nations.

      Because several decades ago the car companies did everything they could to dismantle existing public transportation systems and prevent future systems?

    40. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      Why of course Mr. AC. There is more available should you chose to read it, both from me, and countless actual specialists in the area, which is where I get my information. I do so wish that what I said was in fact hyperbole, it would let me sleep a lot better at night. Unfortunately anyone that follows US and World news these days will agree with much of my post, and that is what makes me so uncomfortable.

    41. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Got healthcare yet?" yup
      "Harboring any war criminals with impunity there?" nope, although we often support war criminals in other countries, which I find disgraceful
      "What do most Americans think of climate change?" I think everyone agrees the climate changes, except some nutcases who seem to think we can *stop* the climate from changing
      "Or the theory of evolution?" erm do you mean evolution in general or the idea that life itself evolved from inorganic material? what difference does it make anyway?

    42. Re:US is in trouble by tftp · · Score: 1

      If a slow train is using a line, it bogs down the other trains in the same line.

      Freight and passenger trains share tracks all the time. This problem is known since the first trains and first railroads, and there are solutions. For example, you can have short segments of spare tracks where a slower (freight) train can stay to allow a faster train to pass.

    43. Re:US is in trouble by ganhawk · · Score: 1

      India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?

      What are you talking about ? You just go to the store, pay for your TV and get it home. If the shopkeeper increases the price or asks you for a bribe, you can go to the next shop. India sells the same Chinese made TV just as the US. It also costs about just the same (Actually a little bit less in absolute value, but then compared to the cost of living, it is like 3x more expensive)

      --
      Python script to convert photos into "artsy" portraits: http://p2pbridge.sf.net/pyPortrait/
    44. Re:US is in trouble by stdarg · · Score: 1

      India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?

      Where did that come from? I'm American and I am very puzzled where the hugely negative perception of India comes from. Is it just because they were friendly with the evil Soviets?

    45. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...>If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.

      That's what Intellectual Property is for. See, everyone knows that, one way or another, the American economy is going to morph into an actively managed market. Big Media Inc. have decided that they are best off being the ones who manage it, and have convinced your president that the creation of artificial wealth, which can be inflated and deflated as necessary, is the preferred method of debt management. See? -patting head- Everything's gonna be fiiiinnnnneeeeee...

    46. Re:US is in trouble by pydev · · Score: 1

      You think those debates or political schemes are anything new? US politics has worked that way for two centuries, and Europeans have always said how much better things were in Europe. But millions who have voted with their feet and emigrated to the US, and the US managed to hold together during all that time, while Europe murdered millions of Jews, fought two world wars, and had military dictatorships and internal strife until the late 20th century.

      And today, Europe isn't doing well at all: high and rising social expenditures and commitments, an aging population, continued distrust between European member nations and lack of a European identity, and an inability to defend itself and its interests.

      Don't worry about the US, the US will muddle through. You should rather be worried about wherever it is you are coming from.

    47. Re:US is in trouble by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated

      Oh, I can think of something worse than that. It could pass.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    48. Re:US is in trouble by pydev · · Score: 1

      2564 miles at 270 mph (China's maglev speed) = 9.5 hours assuming no stops in between.

      That's about as long as an airline trip realistically takes: 6h flight, 1-2h check-in, 1/2-1h baggage retrieval, 1h drive to and from the airport at either end. But you have less hassle, less interruption, fewer delays, and much more legroom on the train. In fact, on the train, you can get a full 8h of sleep and arrive rested.

      When time is the critical factor, air will win

      It's a toss-up for 6h flights. For shorter flights, rail clearly wins. The continental US could comfortably replace its airlines with HSR and reduce travel times on average.

    49. Re:US is in trouble by fm6 · · Score: 4, 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.

    50. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A decade my ass. Clinton was so buddy buddy with the Repubs that monetarily and business-wise they've been runnin things uninterrupted for 30 years now. It started with Reganomics and ended with massive bailouts. My entire life has been lived in the Republican economic bubble!

    51. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      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.

      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.

      While I did vote for the California High Speed Rail Network, I did so only after reading over their papers and deciding they actually had a pretty good plan. But I'm under no illusions that it will be cheaper than car, or air. It will simply allow me to bypass LA's hideous 1960's era interstates, and for that I'm willing to pay billions.

    52. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I think there's some problems with your assumptions.

      First, I don't know about this 120 people/load thing; any decent cross-continental train will have much higher capacity than that to get better economies of scale. Why would you limit yourself to a train that only carries half as many passengers as a 777? That makes no sense at all. Just because China does it that way doesn't mean it's the best way.

      Second, a maglev shouldn't be traveling straight from LA to NYC; it should be stopping in a few cities in-between such as Denver to pick up and drop off more passengers. Obviously, you don't want it stopping too much or else it'll have the Greyhound bus problem. In addition, some smaller regional links (such as Phoenix to LA, or San Diego to LA, or Boston to NYC) should be added in to bring even more passengers to the main hubs, which will greatly increase the overall utilization.

      Also add in the projected costs of airfare in the future; it's only going to get more expensive as jet fuel costs go up with rising fossil fuel costs. Maglev operating costs won't go up nearly as much, since it's electrically powered and can be run from any electric power source (nuclear, etc.).

      Of course, it would make a lot more sense to build maglev train links between closer-together cities to start with, rather than blowing $40 billion on a cross-country line that may not be economically feasible. Shorter-run trains (like from Boston to NYC, Phoenix to San Diego/LA, LA to SanFran, SanFran to Portland, Portland to Seattle, Phoenix to Denver, etc.) wouldn't cost nearly as much, and would probably get even better ridership since there'd probably be little or zero difference in travel time between those and airplanes since airplanes have such high overhead times (sitting on the tarmac for 2 hours, sitting in line at security, etc.). After the economics are proven and people become more accustomed to maglev travel, it'd become feasible to invest in longer-distance lines: LA to Dallas, or NYC to Chicago, for instance. Of course, for this to work out, you'd have to use fast maglev technology. You can't roll out some slow-ass train that goes slightly faster than a regular train, but stops every 20 miles, and call it "high speed" and expect people to flock to it in droves (e.g., Acela "Express").

    53. Re:US is in trouble by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Where do I get 6-8 Trillion? Because the estimate about a decade ago before inflation (serious property and construction costs increases, steel is about 3x more expensive, concrete 2x and equipment costs are about double) was 2 trillion or so.

      Do you seriously think you can take the construction cost for a length of flat track where ROW already exists and extrapolate cross-continental construction with 3 mountain ranges along the way? The original continental railroad link cost 10X a much per mile to cross the sierras as it did the plains. A High speed rail link across the sierra's alone will blow the 2Billion cost of the Detroit line out of the water just in the excavation and tunneling costs.

      Think for god's sake, swear to god common sense is a rare commodity.

    54. Re:US is in trouble by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The 40 billion is for a short route. LA to Las Vegas.

      San Diego to the new airport, 10 billion.

      So if the going rate in 2010 dollars for Los Angeles to Las Vegas is 40 billion, figure 60 billion for LA to Phoenix. Las Vegas to Denver would be 100-150 billion. Denver to KC would be 60-80 (cheaper because it's flat).

      Just to expand Acela between Eugene and Vancouver BC is going to be a half billion dollars. Tampa to Orlando is 1.2 billion.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/ARRA_High_Speed_Rail_Grants_Details.jpg

      As for fossil fuels jacking the price of air travel, that is true, but turbines are flexible, other fuels like bio mixtures, diesel and even diesel from coal dust are future options. There are literally hundreds of years of coal dust for fuel sitting around.

    55. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated

      Oh, I can think of something worse than that. It could pass.

      Sometimes I really don't get the US... So many bright people, so many innovations, so much art, but you still fail to see how public health care can drastically improve your general standard of living. For me, as a central European, this is utterly incomprehensible.

    56. Re:US is in trouble by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

      If you read the article. It isn't ment to be a people trail. China want the ability to move materials.

    57. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course there's other sources of fossil fuels. But if they were economical, they would have been exploited by now. They only become economical to exploit as the cost of oil rises, so we do need to take into account this rise of prices on the cost of an airline ticket.

      I do think, however, that these prices for high speed rail lines are too high (just like the price of roadbuilding is much too high), but there's probably nothing that can be done about it at this point since a lot of that cost is due to inefficient government, cronyism, kickbacks, and other forms of corruption.

      What would be ideal is if we built a SkyTran system between cities instead (and within them too). The per-mile cost would be a tiny fraction of other options, and you could go door-to-door.

    58. Re:US is in trouble by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't think that Russia is as screwed as many seem to think.

      They have a secret weapon; its called 'the Russian people'.

      I think that 'westerners' look at Russians and they think 'oh they are white people, eurpopeans, they are like us.'

      These 'westerners' will then assume that these (Russian) people are subject to the same kinds of cultural limitations and constraints as them. And thereby underestimate them massively.

      The 'western world' is experiencing its golden age now, and it thinks itself strong and virile. But it isn't, its far from virile in fact its very weak and unstable. Times have been easy but things are changing. As civilisations go, I anticipate that 'the western world' will undergo something resembling presenile dementia.

      And then the wolves will close in.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    59. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      Very well said, though I stick to my outlandish exaggerations :). A few points I disagree on if we are being serious though. While the Tea Party is a very minor section of US politics, their poll numbers are surprisingly high. Incidentally, when you remove the ultra vocal chapters there are actually some pretty good traditional Conservative ideas buried deep in there. The problem, I think, is that the ultra vocal branches are the ones most likely to field candidates in some of the deep red states, and the majority of that public will just vote blindly without realizing who exactly they are voting for. Then, as we have recently seen, even a single senator can create problems in that house. On the other hand, this could work out well for getting a bit of fresh blood into the system, either by splitting the vote, or by getting Tea Party candidates into office. Anything that breaks a dynasty is to be commended.

      Regarding for my stance on bank reform, I should clarify that I mean bank reform that would actually include meaningful change to the system. Of course that would require much more government involvement in banks; an issue for much of the older generation in the south, who had it hammered into their heads that government regulation is the very essence of Communism. As such, while people are certainly for regulations, the only things I could see passing the public arena (Especially after the spin doctors are done with it) are a weak slap on the wrists that would in my view almost ensure another major crisis within one or two decades. If we get to that point, I certainly hope that the current generation will have much to say about the matter.

      As long as the public supports the legislators that so obviously oppose these reforms, they are effectively against reforms, even if they may approve of them in principle. Perhaps if move younger voters came out in Republican bastions things may be different, but I hold to my statement that a sizable portion would simply not support reforms to the level that needs to happen.

      Similarly when it comes to basic health care, I should mention that I consider preventative care to be a basic right in a nation at the forefront of health research. Obviously I am not suggesting that you would need to treat everyone like a millionaire, but everyone should have access to a general doctor when they need one, without any unreasonable delay, or unreasonable out of pocket cost. A public option is really the only reasonable way to accomplish this at a reasonable cost (Along with significant reduction in red tape for medical facilities). The thing they are trying to pass in lieu of that will most likely result in one company, or a small conglomerate of companies monopolizing the national market, netting somewhat reduced premiums, and very high profits for the entities involved. I'm not sure how the tax credits will work, but those tax credits do not change the fact that there would still be a very significant movement of money from the public to corporations. Again, this would not survive more than a few decades, but those decades would not be too pleasant.

      I will admit that I added in the high speed rail thing as a literary device more than anything else. It seemed like a good way to tie the conversation to the topic without getting too political (Too late now?). In fact I'm not too familiar with the debate, since it is a bit more local than I care to delve as I don't even live in the country. Based on what you said, I do hope it will be built eventually. The sooner the better, as it would certainly help by getting some people working, but again, for me the jobless rate is just a statistic, and the rail topic is a black box.

      Finally, about being screwed. I see it like this: The upcoming election will most likely decide the course of the next decade or two. If the Republican strategy of "No! No! No! No! No! No!" works, and worse, becomes the norm, then we will have a very painful couple of decades waiting for the current generation of politicians to

    60. Re:US is in trouble by TikiTDO · · Score: 3, 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.

    61. Re:US is in trouble by rjiy · · Score: 1

      India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?

      This used to be true in the 80s when there were massive import duties. But it's not true any longer atleast for tv sets (I just bought one here).

      There still seems to be a lot of corruption, especially in real estate, where money under the table (in order to avoid tax) is usually included in price calculations and usually benefits buyer and seller and is to the detriment of only the govt purse. I'm not relishing the prospect of purchasing a house here and am wondering if i can actually stand up to the pressure and how much it will cost me.

    62. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

    63. Re:US is in trouble by Dr.+Spork · · 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.

    64. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always light at the end of the tunnel.

      Although this time it might be the light of a train coming at you at the speed of 320 km/h.

    65. Re:US is in trouble by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so pessimistic. It is hard to generalise about Europe as despite the cohesion offered by the European Union, each country is in quite a different situation. In general Germany and Scandinavian countries, and indeed to an extent France, provide a firm stable core to Europe that has a stable social democratic tradition, with elements of socialism and a reasonably properly regulated market. Other countries while more unstable, do prevent the core from becoming too stagnated. In general it is very true that Europe is stronger together, even if in many ways it isn't a single unit.

      In Europe my main worry is not in fact Greece or debt crisis. I think the biggest issue of instability that may arise is if things deteriorate further in the UK. Politically it is not a happy choice there (current lot, or another lot who would look to England first, be pro-Union but divisive and look to pull the UK out of the EU). Economically they in some ways aren't so different from Greece (but with greater clout and confidence in them to allow larger debt to be held with less issue for now - but of course then the scale is far far larger too) but with the exposure that having an independent currency brings and no-one to bail them out (or necessarily able to with the scale). They may be able to fiddle with devaluation, etc. but they are exposed to the issue of currency speculation and if tomorrow everyone decided the UK was in trouble (e.g after an election with dodgy outcome) then sterling could crash.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    66. Re:US is in trouble by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're not quite there yet, but you are on the fast-track to shitville.

      For the moment the big corps are still happy to buy the government they like. What's gonna happen when there's nothing interesting left to buy?

      America 2.0: outsourcing of the senators.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    67. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, that needs swift and decisive action, which is exactly what the US system is designed to prevent.

      "Swift and decisive" is necessary only if there is some closing window of opportunity, which in this case I don't see ("My life leaking out waiting for Good Times to roll back in" not applicable). You can always rebound later. After all, China did exactly that.

      Only desperate times (increasing number of folks dieing miserably) bring desperate measures. That is why things often get much worse before (if ever) they start getting any better. However, it is a feature. Bringing on the desperate measures too soon, before having a good look at the situation at hand is a recipe for failing for good, without hope of getting it right second time around.

    68. Re:US is in trouble by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Ok, we'll triple the 20B for material expenses and inflation (which has been pretty flat lately). 60B.

      Now we'll pretend the whole thing is mountain ranges and multiply by 10. 600B.

      Where does the other 5.4 to 7.4 trillion come from?

      Probably from an estimate by somebody who did not want it to be done. Do you have a link to that estimate?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    69. Re:US is in trouble by LittlePud · · Score: 1

      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.

      "The American way of life is NOT negotiable."

    70. Re:US is in trouble by dominious · · Score: 1

      If we don't turn it around, our economy is going down the tubes.

      Well, exactly!
      http://www.google.com/search?q=tube

    71. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 2, 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.

    72. Re:US is in trouble by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just wait until China invades Europe by rail. We settled on a different rail standard than the Russians specifically to avoid invasion...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no private property rights in the US anymore. What happened in New London, CT can happen anywhere.

    74. Re:US is in trouble by snsr · · Score: 1

      Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed

      You're defining an entire nation based on your interpretation of.. what, exactly? Mass media news? Seriously, the quote above is one of the most uninformed, calloused, and pessimistic things I've read in quote some time. America is a nation of capable, creative, industrious people - we'll make it through this, and hopefully be wiser for it.

    75. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Can you please find a way to get that message inside the states so that people outside of slashdot take notice?

    76. Re:US is in trouble by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's worth considering that at the moment Europe is screaming at Greece because it has a 10% unemployment rate. The USA looks at itself, sees the same number and thinks that it is normal.

    77. Re:US is in trouble by steelfood · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems with rail is the very poor last-mile infrastructure to move people. Freight is not a problem, as they're well built out privately, but public transportation is crap in most places, and a taxi or cab would negate the economics of taking a train over driving. Hell, the NYC subway is one of the two major systems that even runs 24 hours a day.

      The issue partly is due to the size, and population density of most places, especially major metropolitian areas. Metro areas are simply too large, and populaton density in all but the most tightly-packed cities are too low. It makes it both economically infeasible and inefficient to provide a decent mass transportation system.

      The other issue is due to the American fixation on cars. Everything is designed with driving in mind. In fact, suburbia itself is a direct result of this mentality. I'm not sure if it's because the car is an American invention, or if people are just too lazy to walk, but this has resulted in prioritizing vehicles when engineering transportation.

      If they ripped up the middle 2 lanes of every highway and replaced it with rail with a station at every exit, I'll bet that'll solve the congestion problem in many places. But such a project would take years to complete, and nobody'd want to take the inevitable traffic hit during construction of the rail system.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    78. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about your assessment of Europe. Honestly, the EU may just force member nations to undergo bankruptcy procedures if they are in too much financial trouble - the exact details of this are being worked on. Of course it will not be likely that the affected nations will be sold off to the highest bidder, but they will need to massively change according to whatever the EU experts decide is necessary to get them "profitable" again. By the way, the former Soviet Union nations aren't really that bad. Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain are the problem.

    79. Re:US is in trouble by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Maybe *you* don't transport goods on high speed rail, but I'd bet good money that China will.

      Why would you transport goods on high speed rail? What matters for freight is throughput, not latency.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    80. Re:US is in trouble by ScientiaPotentiaEst · · Score: 1

      Got healthcare yet?

      No, there are sick people dying in the streets everywhere I walk. I just can't wait until the government takes it over and then all will be peachy - just like in the UK.

      What do most Americans think of climate change?

      You have me there - too many still believe it's anthropogenic. Fortunately, more and more are waking up to the scam.

      This 1/6.5 billionth of the rest of the world thinks the USA, on average, is pretty backwards.

      And quite a few in the USA think some in the rest of the world - such as yourself - are, on average, ignorant and bigoted.

    81. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if it's because the car is an American invention

      Do people in the US actually think that?

    82. Re:US is in trouble by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      For fossil fuels, the cheapest to extract and to refine is rock oil, so that is what is being used up right now. Synthetic fuels, like what the Nazis and South Africa developed are also viable, along with natural gas to diesel, coal to diesel, biofuels, shale oil, etc.

      Just because they aren't in use right now doesn't mean they won't be economical with scale, it just means there hasn't been a reason to move to them.

      SkyTran isn't ideal, its a pipe dream. None are built so we don't know how they will really work.

    83. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Or...troops?

    84. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It depends on the goods, and it depends on the business model.

      What matters isn't entirely freight throughput, but also cost. And all of that operates within the scope of things needing to get where they're going "fast enough". What constitutes "fast enough" depends on things like, whether the goods are perishable or time-sensitive, and whether your competitors can get there faster and easier. Plus, you do reach a point where, if the cost of going faster is negligible, then faster is better.

      If you RTFA:

      China benefits because it will be able to transport materials cheaply into manufacturing centers inside its borders and the Eastern Hemisphere benefits by getting a fast, efficient, low carbon transportation system.

    85. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just because they aren't in use right now doesn't mean they won't be economical with scale, it just means there hasn't been a reason to move to them.

      I'm sorry, that's not true at all. Oil companies know perfectly well how economical they'll be with scale, and if there's sufficient profit to extract them (remember, extraction requires a lot of energy itself). Right now, they're not. When oil costs $200/bbl, then you'll see more sources like that exploited, but obviously this means that your fuel costs will be a lot higher than now.

      SkyTran isn't ideal, its a pipe dream. None are built so we don't know how they will really work.

      That's what they said about the airplane too.

      The maglev technology SkyTran uses (InducTrack) has been built and works fine. The only thing which hasn't been built is the autonomous control system, but we already have autonomous control systems in regular cars that can navigate on standard roads. SkyTran is an order of complexity less than this, since it doesn't have to worry about things like computer vision, steering, etc., since it's confined to a track and only has to worry about intersections and not running into cars in front of it. It's really not that complicated a problem.

    86. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      What the hell, where you going to get all that corn? Yeah, go ahead and keep draining the Midwest of their water to grow it with. Those aquifers wouldn't last long, plus with planes, they really pollute.

    87. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      That says it all. I think it's just a matter of scale for it to be viable and Mr. Taxpayer and Uncle Sam ain't seeing eye to eye right now. So as usual more roads will be built. I hear China is doing that as fast as they can too.

    88. Re:US is in trouble by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nor have the cars, the rails or all of it put together.

      Where oh where are there autonomous cars driving around on a regular basis?

    89. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      The problem with the US is those rural areas which provide much of the big cities livelihood like growing corn to make cheese or mining coal for instance. Now in Europe the rural areas have mostly disappeared (there are a few left) that make real wine and cheese and Germany doesn't care to put an urban area close to where they mine coal. In the US our best coal is in the mountains along with a bunch of gun nuts, moon shiners, and dope growers.

      Now do you see the difference. Switzerland is in a thorny location. They could stay neutral during WWII because of those mountains yet it occupies a much it is right between all the important stuff. Their banking policies have also helped them enormously. Europe has few areas like this. The US is filled with this stuff in the middle because of those Great Lakes. The terrain over here is much harsher like the Rocky Mountains and Alaska. All of our people came from Europe to start with because they had nothing and here they had a small chance to have something. So while we may be on the decline, we still have a few more cards to play.

    90. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah them Rocky Mountains seem to be the hard part. Maybe we could use a couple of neutron bombs on the places where we want to cross. It might be like getting an xray every time you pass by but that doesn't cost quite as much as 50 bajillion.

    91. Re:US is in trouble by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --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.--

      Even though they are Communist, I don't think you can compare them to the Russians. They are very different. The Chinese do have patience. Americans have never developed this, so we shall see which way is better.

    92. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah indeed. An interesting comparison to make too is the 25 years estimated to build the measly 800-mile high-speed train project in California (est. completion by 2035), whereas China is planning what appears to be a roughly 10000-mile project to be completed in 10 years...

      It's almost as if they were some of the same people responsible for building a trans-continental railroad

    93. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Ports

      There's reasonable tonnage that goes through those lakes every year.

    94. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...health care bill...

      That's what it should be called. Because you'll get a heart attack when you see yours if it passes. "Reform" is a lie. I say kill it. It's a fraud, a sham.

    95. Re:US is in trouble by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      All that tonnage has to pass through the St. Lawrence Seaway, which limits the size of vessels that can pass through its locks to only 78 feet. That's pretty small for a cargo ship.

      It's probably cheaper to send your cargo on one big ship from China to LA and offload the cargo to train to Chicago than to use several small cargo ships for the whole journey, through the Panama Canal, and all the way around the eastern US directly to Chicago by water. Or worse, transfer the cargo from big ships onto the small ships that can pass through the seaway.

    96. Re:US is in trouble by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      However, Russia is inherently tied to the stability of the Chinese and the European markets

      Russia, and much of the rest of the Slavic world, is very much 'east meets west'.

      My impression has been that the Slavic people have far more in common with, say, the Chinese people than they do with, say, the German people or the French or British.

      I think that this double-sided nature of Russia gives you an edge.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    97. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Well roads aren't generally expected to function as businesses.

      Really? I pay three hundred bucks a year to use the roads here in California. And that's not counting money from taxes I pay to the federal government or from the CA general fund.

      >>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.

      It's even more basic - in America, it's not possible to get by without a car.

      It has to do with population density.

      All of England is packed into a country the size of California, and even they struggle to keep their rail systems profitable.

      On the day that I gave a guest lecture on global warming at a local community college (and all the students knew we would be talking about global warming), I took a poll: 100% of the students drove their cars to the campus, even though they could have taken the bus. Now, though, they can't take the bus - not enough students were riding it, so they shut the line down.

    98. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's even more basic - in America, it's not possible to get by without a car.

      That's pretty much what I was saying, but go on...

      It has to do with population density.

      Well... sort of. It has to do with *how we build our cities*. We general build our cities to have small downtown areas that aren't very livable, and then we surround them with miles and miles of suburban sprawl where you have to drive even to get to a grocery store or your neighborhood park. As far as I can tell, most Americans believe that this is the only option, and things could never exist another way.

      However, it's really the result of deliberate decisions made a handful of decades ago. There wasn't really any such thing as "suburbs" 100 years ago. Lots of policy-makers decided to bet the future of America on the auto industry. Over several decades, they worked to dismantle public transportation systems, cut funding to train systems, and prop up the auto industry when necessary. We built roads everywhere, built highways everywhere, and it seemed for a while that it was a good solution.

      Now we've come to understand that it's tremendously wasteful to expect each person to own, maintain, and fuel their own car. We can't build enough roads in and around major cities to handle all of the traffic. We can't keep up with the energy demand. The whole thing is unsustainable. Public transportation would be much more efficient, but we've been planning our cities and towns and suburbs around the idea that everyone would have a car.

      It's not that everyone needs a car because we have low population density; it's that we have a low population density because we've spaced ourselves out on the assumption that everyone would have a car.

    99. Re:US is in trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just can't wait until the government takes it over and then all will be peachy

      Ooh, yay, a strawman.

      I don't think anybody claims UHC results in "all will be peachy". Longer life expectancies, better or at least similar results in other metrics, for vastly reduced per capita expenditure, on the other hand...

      But I suppose you don't have a one sentence piece of flamebait to "dismiss" actual fact-based arguments.

      You have me there - too many still believe it's anthropogenic. Fortunately, more and more are waking up to the scam.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, man, I'm sorry, I thought at first this was a serious post. I'd have saved my typing on that first point if I realised.

    100. Re:US is in trouble by fm6 · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems with rail is the very poor last-mile infrastructure to move people.

      And why do we have shoddy last mile infrastructure? Because for the last century we've designed cities on the assumption that private cars made it unnecessary. Now our roadways are saturated, gas is no longer cheap, and we're stuck with a sprawl that can't be easily served by either private cars or public transit.

    101. Re:US is in trouble by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Americans aren't really so much opposed to public healthcare, as they are opposed to the particular implementation that is being proposed. Quite frankly, it stinks.

    102. Re:US is in trouble by aqk · · Score: 0

      Well the Chinese just bulldoze your house if they need the land. We have something called property rights unless you live in Connecticut.

      Exactly why you Americans, and even more so, we Canadians, are becoming the new third world.
      A few "big farmers", excuse me, rich republican rednecks are crying "NIMBY",even though most of the US land is either public, or owned by the rich... ummm I already referred to these guys.
      Say! Just how many thousands of acres do YOU own, big boy Assemberx?
      Oh! Less than 20? hmmnnn... I don't think YOUR property rights are much in danger.
      But Ok brave big boy minuteman- grab yer rifle and go off and defend "your" freedom while the rich guys chuckle.
      Anyhow-
      We Canadians along with Africa have the slooooowest trains on the planet Earth.
      Oh, wait! ...

      South Africa is now building a "super" train on par with those of Europe, Japan, China and South America!
      Ironically, it's being built by a company that was once considered "Canadian".
      Golly- I guess Canada really IS in the 4th world now! Hey, USA, you plan on joining us joining us? Welcome to the club!
      And (LOL!) Let's not talk about Al Gore's "Electronic Superhighway"...(snicker)

    103. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We can't build enough roads in and around major cities to handle all of the traffic. We can't keep up with the energy demand.

      We can, actually. Looking at Orange County vs. Los Angeles as a natural experiment, we can see that Orange County, which invested money in rods, is busy but usable. LA had a mayor that decided that investing the money in public transportation was instead the way to go. So they have a light rail system, a subway, and a nice bus system... and the worst roads in the country. When you drive south on the I-5 it's like a breath of fresh air when you cross over into OC. People go from 35 to 75.

      And we've managed to keep up with the energy demand, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

      >>However, it's really the result of deliberate decisions made a handful of decades ago. There wasn't really any such thing as "suburbs" 100 years ago. Lots of policy-makers decided to bet the future of America on the auto industry.

      It's not quite like that. The notion of the suburbs didn't really exist before WWII - upon return, and coincident with several factors: the GI bill, the development of prefab construction making independent homes cheap, and societal norms changing so that being a homeowner was part and parcel of the father/leader of the household, caused the explosion of suburbs. If you look at Time Magazine covers from this time period, you'll see the father/mother/sister/brother family idealized along with buying a house for the first time. The fact that city centers kind of sucked helped (and the exodus made them suck more), and the availability of cars made it possible, but those were the main factors in the development of the suburbs.

      >>It's not that everyone needs a car because we have low population density; it's that we have a low population density because we've spaced ourselves out on the assumption that everyone would have a car.

      Sort of. America is still a really big place compared with Europe and Japan, and so the economics of rail are always going to be more challenging. I follow the high speed rail commission here in California, and it's really tough.

    104. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      we can see that Orange County, which invested money in rods, is busy but usable. LA had a mayor that decided that investing the money in public transportation was instead the way to go. So they have a light rail system, a subway, and a nice bus system... and the worst roads in the country. When you drive south on the I-5 it's like a breath of fresh air when you cross over into OC. People go from 35 to 75.

      Well first, it's not as simple as comparing any two places. Not to drag out trite sayings, but correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. Traffic is better in Orange County, fine. Are the same things going on in both areas? Is the the same population, same industries, same use of land? Where's the traffic flow coming from, and where is it going to? There are loads of variables.

      Second, are people really utilizing the public transportation there? I haven't been to LA in... well I guess it's over 10 years now, but to my recollection, you kind of needed a car. It was all spread out, busy roads and highways all over the place. That's not what I'm talking about. Throwing a light rail into LA and expecting it to take care of your transportation problems is like throwing an antivirus onto Windows ME and expecting it to take care of your security problems.

      If people were using public transportation very heavily, then it would probably mean it *is* alleviating a lot of the traffic problems. If you think traffic is bad now, imagine each of the public transportation riders in their own cars, adding to it.

      But I suspect that most people aren't taking public transportation, and who can blame them. You live in a city where you really need a car to get by and live your life. Someone puts down bus route nearby, but you still need a car. You need to make all the payments and pay for insurance. Your car is just sitting in your driveway. Are you really going to walk 20 minutes to the bus stop, wait 30 minutes for the bus to show, ride for another 20 minutes, walk 15 minutes more to get to someplace that's a 10 minute drive away? Then you have to go through the whole thing again going home.

      Now compare that to living in a city where the public transportation really genuinely takes you everywhere you need to go, quickly and cheaply. It runs pretty regularly, not a lot of waiting. It's at least moderately clean. Most of the things you need to live are within a few blocks of your house/apartment, and the rest are within a 20 minute bike ride or train ride. Are you really going to spend a couple hundred dollars on car payments, plus insurance, plus gas, plus tolls, plus parking, plus maintenance, plus... whatever? Why?

      It's not quite like that. The notion of the suburbs didn't really exist before WWII - upon return, and coincident with several factors: the GI bill, the development of prefab construction making independent homes cheap, and societal norms changing so that being a homeowner was part and parcel of the father/leader of the household, caused the explosion of suburbs.

      Something as big as the development of suburbs were bound to have many factors, but as you admit, it simply wouldn't have been possible without cars becoming so commonplace. They still aren't possible without the assumption that pretty much everyone will have their own car.

      But the larger point I was trying to make was that, contrary to the view that our society would fall apart if everyone didn't have their own car, most people simply didn't have that kind of transportation option a few decades ago. Basically, we already know how to live without cars (that is, most people not needing cars in their day-to-day lives). We don't need to figure it out. The only reason we can't is because our cities have been so poorly planned.

      And yes, in many areas, there was a conscious, deliberate, and sometimes even public decision to forgo expanding public transportation, in some cases even dismantling working systems, because cars w

    105. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Well first, it's not as simple as comparing any two places. Not to drag out trite sayings, but correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. Traffic is better in Orange County, fine. Are the same things going on in both areas? Is the the same population, same industries, same use of land? Where's the traffic flow coming from, and where is it going to? There are loads of variables.

      Sure. But OC and LA make up one contiguous metropolitan area. There have been interstate expansions going on in OC since, well, at least the early 80s. LA is running a city on roads that have been left mostly unchanged since the 1960s. The I-5, which is the main north-south corridor for California, drops to a single lane right in the middle of LA (at the merge with the I-10 and the, uh, 101 I think). I don't think you need to be a traffic engineer to understand that forcing your most important artery in a state down to a single lane will do anything but cause eternal traffic jams. Nowadays I only drive through LA in the middle of the night unless someone is holding a gun to my head. The traffic is just too bad otherwise.

      Second, are people really utilizing the public transportation there? I haven't been to LA in... well I guess it's over 10 years now, but to my recollection, you kind of needed a car. It was all spread out, busy roads and highways all over the place. That's not what I'm talking about. Throwing a light rail into LA and expecting it to take care of your transportation problems is like throwing an antivirus onto Windows ME and expecting it to take care of your security problems.

      Sure, my wife, who is from LA, was horrified by how bad the bus system was in San Diego (where we met). The bus system can get you anywhere in LA. The trouble is, unless they have a dedicated bus lane (which they do on some interstates), the buses get bogged down on the same 1960s-era roads. The light rail and subway systems have decent ridership numbers. If its going where you're going, it's a good alternative to the nightmarish road commute.

      But you're right, you do need a car, really. As the song goes, nobody walks in LA.

      But the larger point I was trying to make was that, contrary to the view that our society would fall apart if everyone didn't have their own car, most people simply didn't have that kind of transportation option a few decades ago. Basically, we already know how to live without cars (that is, most people not needing cars in their day-to-day lives). We don't need to figure it out. The only reason we can't is because our cities have been so poorly planned.

      Workers used to have to live within walking distance of a street car stop. The car allowed people to live further away. The problem is, there's not a whole lot of incentive to go back the other way. Even in the Bay Area (where I lived for three years), you could only really go without a car in the city itself. Living in Daly City / South San Francisco, where I did, everyone had a car. There was a bus stop right in front of my apartment, but taking a bus to get to the BART to get to SFO turned a 15 minute car drive into about an hour and a half ordeal. So I drove. And people drive across the Bay Bridge every day because it's still easier for them than mass transit, and the Bay Area has a tremendously expensive mass transit system.

      Even in our current mess of traffic, cars still win in a lot of situations. People won't stop driving for global warming or other impersonal factors, and most people like the extra land they get in the suburbs and slower pace than city life. I'm not sure if investing in roads is a really good solution, but none of the other solutions work very well either.

      My thoughts on city design for some cities I've been to in the last year:
      San Diego has invested a lot into roads, and the roads are usable. Rush hour is bad, but rush hour is not eternal.
      Orange County has invested a lot into roads, and

    106. Re:US is in trouble by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Things certainly get done much more quickly without pesky voters and NIMBYism.

      After winning the Olympics bid in 2001, Beijing built almost 100km worth of subway lines before the games started in 2008. This is not possible in much of the West.

      In Seattle, it is scheduled to take 20 years to build 30 miles of above-ground light rail. It will probably end up being only 10 miles by the time it's finished.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    107. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      But OC and LA make up one contiguous metropolitan area

      Even in Manhattan, some areas have worse traffic than others. Driving in midtown can be a nightmare; go uptown and it's a breath of fresh air. Look at the entire NYC metro area (including all the boroughs and parts of NJ), and the difference is tremendous; Manhattan has much worse traffic than the surrounding areas in spite of having good public transportation. That doesn't mean that the public transportation isn't helping. I read an article recently about how NYC has added about half a million people in the past 10 years, yet the number of cars in the city have stayed the same.

      Yes, LA can't be fixed by simply adding mass transit. It's a city designed for cars, hence my Windows ME analogy. You can't take a city designed for cars, tack on a bus route, and expect it all to work out.

      The issue with it is that when you redirect public funds from roads to mass transit, the roads suffer

      I suppose. Of course, if you redirect public funds from mass transit to roads, then mass transit suffers.

      You only have limited tax money to play with.

      Well you might have more if we weren't wasting so much on inefficient methods of travel. Admittedly that's playing the long game, but you get more taxes when there's economic growth, and you get better economic growth when there are big gains in efficiency due to improved infrastructure.

      What tea baggers, as you call them, are protesting are the increases in government spending, not really the spending itself.

      Well I didn't come up with the term "tea baggers". They came up with the name themselves and talked about "tea bagging" people. But what they're protesting is shifting and vague, depends on which tea bagger you ask and when you ask them. The "movement" covers everything from tax reform to Libertarian policies to anti-Obama racism to incoherent anti-government paranoia. But my main argument here is against the claim that building public infrastructure is "communist" unless you're talking about roads. Essentially the point of view is, "government action is evil unless it's something that I rely on, in which case it's perfectly fine." Public health care = evil, but I'm on Medicare so Medicare is fine. Public infrastructure = evil, but I like to drive so Interstate highways are fine.

      LA and SF are cases in point. You can make road-based networks work, but you have to upgrade your roads as more people move into your area.

      But cases in point of what? Cities that are designed under the assumption that everyone will have cars, and thereby force people to own cars? Part of the problem that you might not be seeing is that there comes a point where you simply *can't* build enough roads. In the extreme case, you look at a city like NYC where all the land is already taken up with roads and buildings. Washington DC is less extreme, but traffic is a constant mess because it's not practical to really build enough roads. I suspect LA is in the same boat as DC.

      But the real question is, when you reach the saturation point, do you want your city to have anticipated and planned for the problem, building so that you can put in an effective public transportation system? Or do you want to live in a city where everything has been designed and zoned in such a way that you *need* a car?

      Here's the takeaway point: it's not about building a huge unwieldy public transportation web that covers the mass of suburban sprawl; it's about trying to design our cities and towns better so that you can get most of your daily needs met within a 15 minute walk. If you start trying to think about well designed cities, public transportation is a natural consequence.

    108. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      But also, regarding the idea that public transportation is more expensive, cars/roads are very expensive too. It's just that many of the costs are hidden.

      Think about all the tax money spent on roads, bridges, etc. Now add to that the money all of us (everyone in the country) spend on our cars. Include gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. Plus our government subsidized gasoline production, ethanol production, etc., so add in all those subsidies. Now add in all the money the government has spent on subsidizing the car industry, too.

      You probably think we're done, but that's not even all of it. Think about damages. How many car accidents are there every year? How much money is spent on repairing the cars in those accidents? How much life is lost, and how much is spent on hospital bills from those crashes? How much property damage is there? And think of all the money we spend on enforcing speed limits, drunk driving rules, associated court costs and jail time for offenders.

      Still not done. Now think of the pollution. The air pollution from cars damages buildings, so add in all the maintenance and repair from that. Plus cleanup-- in areas with heavy traffic, car pollution adds a layer of soot to everything. Car pollution also adds to respiratory and cardiovascular disease in people, so figure in any additional health costs due to that. And if we assume for a second that global warming is real (I don't know your stance on that), then add in the eventual costs of offsetting that, as well as the risk of catastrophic environmental damage.

      Think we're done now? Not quite: energy independence. How much of our wealth is exported to other countries for oil? Where do you think the funding for terrorism comes from? So if we're really getting bold, add in the economic damage of 9/11 and the Iraq war into the mix. We can't blame the whole thing on cars, so maybe we'll only assign some small percentage of the cost of the Iraq war to this equation.

      So add up all the money we've talked about, and give me a number. Then you have your budget for public transportation. Sure, we have to come up with a similar list for public transportation, but I'll bet any amount of money that public transportation eventually comes out cheaper for our society as a whole.

    109. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree with you on most of your points. I'm just not sure that we can change out of a car-based city design now that we've had so much money, as you point out, invested into it. When I gave my talk on global warming, I asked the students what it would take to get them to take public transportation instead of using their cars, and something along the lines of "out of my cold dead hands" was given back. Cars are still too optimal for most people, even with a functioning mass transit system in place.

      I agree with you that in places like Manhattan, there's really nothing else you can do with the roads, but places like the LA/OC metropolitan zone have plenty of land - if you place the region over England, you'll see it covers a region from London out to the sea to the east and south - which is also the problem. I think that lower population densities like that are (as you say) designed for cars, but also transitioning to mass transit systems are not practical.

      >>Well I didn't come up with the term "tea baggers". They came up with the name themselves and talked about "tea bagging" people.

      Uh, no. Tea Baggers was a term that Rachel Maddow / Keith Olberman and such came up for them. It's not complementary. I know a lot of people in the Tea Party movement, and they all think the term is somewhere between derogatory and silly.

      >>The "movement" covers everything from tax reform to Libertarian policies to anti-Obama racism to incoherent anti-government paranoia.

      I haven't seen any racism in the movement. In fact, I saw a bunch of Tea Partiers (who are quite anti-immigration through and through) marching alongside Mexican farm workers in Sacramento, fighting for water rights. In general, you could classify the movement as being Libertarian.

      >>Public health care = evil, but I'm on Medicare so Medicare is fine. Public infrastructure = evil, but I like to drive so Interstate highways are fine.

      Yeah. Watching Senator McCain attack public health care because it would cut Medicare was priceless.

    110. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm just not sure that we can change out of a car-based city design now that we've had so much money, as you point out, invested into it.

      Well I would not claim that this is a quick and easy problem to fix. The first thing is recognizing that our current way of dealing with things is not ideal, is not the only solution, and is not even the best solution. The next step is deciding which direction to go, which long-term goals to set. After that, you worry about what the next steps are that you can take toward that goal.

      So I'm not even worried yet about trying to convince you that we should spend $X over the next Y years to build public transportation. I'm just trying to convince you that "everyone owns their own car" is actually not a very good model for transportation infrastructure, and that building public transportation is not inherently foolish, evil, or communist. If you agree with me that far, then I'm happy.

      ...I asked the students what it would take to get them to take public transportation instead of using their cars...

      Meh... college kids aren't necessarily the most wise people to be asking these things. They think they're indestructible, they often aren't very aware of other ways of living, and they think cars are cool. Take away their parents' money and give them a viable public transportation system; their hands will be less cold and dead as they hand over the keys to the car.

      Uh, no. Tea Baggers was a term that Rachel Maddow / Keith Olberman and such came up for them.

      Early on in the whole thing, I saw news footage of teabaggers talking about "tea bagging" Congressman, having "tea bagging parties", and referring to the "tea bagging movement" and "tea bagging parties". Maybe they didn't refer to themselves specifically as "teabaggers", but they certainly brought it on themselves.

      It was only after they realized what the slang meant that they tried to blame the media for giving them the name. Some of them still talk about "tea bagging" people.

      I haven't seen any racism in the movement.

      I'm not saying it's representitive of the "movement" in general, but it's in there: image and image. I've seen worse, including signs that reference having a ["n" word] in the white house, advocating killing Obama, and claiming that Obama hates white people, but didn't see them in my hasty search.

      Essentially, it seems to me that what started as a Libertarian movement has been co-opted by the paranoid wing of the Republican party. Now apparently Sarah Palin and Glen Beck have positioned themselves as central figures in the teabagging movement. Yeah, I'm going to keep calling them that until they get reasonable. Of all the crappy stuff that our government does, these people are really most upset about providing health care and building infrastructure? Really?

    111. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      So I'm not even worried yet about trying to convince you that we should spend $X over the next Y years to build public transportation. I'm just trying to convince you that "everyone owns their own car" is actually not a very good model for transportation infrastructure, and that building public transportation is not inherently foolish, evil, or communist. If you agree with me that far, then I'm happy.

      I'm not (really) disagreeing with you. I just think that the economics of implementing mass transit over suburbs doesn't make sense; in an inner city, it does. When people are spread out, the costs of tunneling et cetera fall behind on the cost benefit ratio than with cars.

      I do think the California High Speed Rail network is a good idea, and has the potential for getting a lot of cars off the road. Ironically enough, it's environmentalists that pose the biggest risk to the project, even though the impact of running a rail line through Pacheco Pass is going to be minimal compared with the impact of the number of cars they take off the road. It's paradoxical, and you see this kind of stuff everywhere - the Sierra Club shutting down Solar PV plants in the desert, for example, or Teddy Kennedy killing off-shore wind farms near his mansion.

      I may be biased, as someone who drives between northern and southern California on a weekly basis, but I think high-speed rail should be quite viable, if managed correctly. And the HSR Committee does seem to be doing a good job. It may all turn out to be a pipe dream - mass transit is kind of one of those things that requires a lot of political will to make happen, even if the numbers are all working out right.

    112. Re:US is in trouble by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah. I got another one for you: environmentalist who would complain and complain about carbon being released in the atmosphere, claim it's literally the end of the world, and then *still* oppose nuclear power in any form. Or they complain about pollution from old power plants, but also oppose the construction of new power plants that would allow the old plants to be decommissioned. Ideology run amok, in most cases.

      I want public transportation more for the long term economic benefits than for the environmental benefits.

    113. Re:US is in trouble by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah. I got another one for you: environmentalist who would complain and complain about carbon being released in the atmosphere, claim it's literally the end of the world, and then *still* oppose nuclear power in any form.

      That's one of my biggest pet peeves! It drives me insane - I was listening to progressive radio the other day and global warming activists were actually protesting outside a nuclear plant, because of... I don't know why. The CO2 emissions, I guess? But they were handcuffing themselves to the chain link fence around the place.

      Anyhow, it's been good talking with you - refreshing to have an actually intelligent conversation on Slashdot for once. =)

  8. Traffic by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suppose it would result in an endless Third World zerg rush on Europe. I'm sure that'll go down well.

    Remember that highway networks were traditionally built to move armies around quickly.

    1. Re:Traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that highway networks were traditionally built to move armies around quickly

      Armies? Through Russia? Good luck.

    2. Re:Traffic by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I don't know. With a high speed rail system it no long is such a hard thing to do (just don't do it in winter).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:Traffic by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      I think China has been smallpoxing and is now transitioning from the civilization which everyone took pity on because they obviously weren't up to much -- to the new superpower which has all the other players go "WTF, how did that happen??"

      Then, with railroads, they can move their units across the continent in a single turn, _and_ ramp up their production. And because their units can be wherever they need them, they'll need fewer of them, allowing them to ramp up their production even more (they do have one shield upkeep under Communism, after all), and, before you know it, they'll either have conquered the world or won the space race.

      Yeah, I'll save my game and turn off the computer now.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:Traffic by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

      Learn Chinese. Trains are better than boats by far.Also don't forget you can move huge missiles on trains too. Think of the fun jobs protecting the rail lines for the Chinese. I am an American and we will send you a million pounds of half retarded marines in exchange for some good European wine and cheese.

    5. Re:Traffic by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      If it stops in any of the Russian cities enroute, DON'T GET OFF THE TRAIN!

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    6. Re:Traffic by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      So are trains. Civil War WWI etc

    7. Re:Traffic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      According to my google search, a train gets about 436 ton-miles per gallon, whereas a cargo ship gets 1600 ton-miles per gallon. Unless I'm missing something, ships are far more efficient at moving cargo than trains.

      However, this article is about high-speed rail, which is really more important for passengers than for cargo (after all, if it's just cargo, what does it matter if it takes an extra day to get there? If you're in a hurry to get your shipment, you'd send it by air anyway). For passengers, ships are not a desirable way to travel, unless you're on vacation on a cruise and have plenty of time, so it comes down to cars, trains, or airplanes. Cars are slow and require constant attention (you can't sleep while your car drives you across Russia). Airplanes are crowded, extremely uncomfortable, and somewhat expensive, and can't move that many people. Trains can move tons of people cheaply, but they're not that fast either (usually 75mph), but high-speed rail fixes this and offers comfortable travel at a speed perhaps half as fast as an airplane.

      As for missiles, I'm pretty sure the Chinese already have ICBMs, so they don't really need trains to transport them.

      But the part about learning Chinese is probably good advice. China's going to become the dominant world power within 100 years, because they're driven, they're fairly smart, Europe really isn't that interested in dominating the world anymore, and the USA is being quickly driven into the ground by idiocy and corruption. I think in 100 years, China will be like the USA was in the 80s, dominating everything. Europe will go on basically as it is now, doing their own thing, being economically stable and prosperous but not dominating the world, and Brazil might be a new power. But I don't know what's going to happen to the USA. It could turn into some kind of backwater, it could become like Mexico (a long series of corrupt governments with lots of crime and violence), it might even break up into smaller countries. It can't become completely irrelevant because there's lots of people here, lots of land, and still lots of resources (see today's Slashdot article about lots of untapped rare earth elements), but it's becoming extremely volatile.

  9. Don Fagen by overshoot · · Score: 1

    For some reason this has me wanting to play Fagen's IGY.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Don Fagen by Anonymatt · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah, brother. Where's my spandex jacket?

  10. What unstable countries ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets see China + Kazackstan + Russia and ukraine... those are not bad!... they aint building it via iran iraq turkey afghanistan etc.!

    1. Re:What unstable countries ? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how reliable it is, but this other article on the project says: "Its main connection to Europe would likely go through India, Pakistan and the Middle East."

    2. Re:What unstable countries ? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing the article, but that seems incredibly stupid when it wouldn't be hard to simply move the rail a little north and go through Russia and the other former Soviet countries, which haven't had nearly as many problems as those further south. Surely Russia would be happy to join in on this cross-continent rail venture.

    3. Re:What unstable countries ? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Logistically I'd agree, but it appears that from a political perspective, working together with India is a major motivation, because India's one of the governments that's most keen on the project, and is important strategically/economically to China. But once you've put it through India, it's too far south to easily go up through Russia.

    4. Re:What unstable countries ? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      This post, which I think is based off the original South China Morning Post article, suggests the main "western network would run from Urumqi through Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, possibly connecting through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey through to Germany". Crossing the Himalayas and then the very populated central India would make little sense.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    5. Re:What unstable countries ? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That seems more sensible to me too, though this article quotes Wang Mengshu, "a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a senior consultant on China's domestic high-speed railways", as saying that India is involved, and may have even originated the idea.

    6. Re:What unstable countries ? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      The cleantechnica article you cited previously probably has the most logical explanation for the discussions with India -

      China is also in communication with Iran, Pakistan and India regarding development of the internal rail lines in each of those countries that would connect to the network.

      ... which makes sense, as it would be a significant value add to be able to use this network to connect India and China, quite apart from the benefits of connecting westwards to Europe. No doubt China would have the run of the line, but adding India to the mix makes it an even more attractive investment opportunity.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    7. Re:What unstable countries ? by opposabledumbs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      China is also extending the rail networks in Tibet, and possibly the most serious threat to China's internal stability came from the riots in Xinjiang province last year. Tensions in both Tibet and Xinjiang are still simmering, largely because the non-Han residents feel left out of the equation every time jobs and wealth opportunities appear in their areas.

      There is also a credible threat (well, depending on who you choose to get your news from, but hey)from the resident Chinese Muslim population, many of whom live in Xinjiang province, and who identify more with Pakistan, Khazakhstan and Turkmenistan than they do with the Middle Kingdom.

      I'm wondering if the routing of the railway line has something to do with this, to give idle hands some work and some access to cash in these areas, and to extend influence into neighbouring countries so that if something happens in the future, China has some real leveraging tools to get things going in the direction that they like. Hell, it could even be used as a reason for a pre-emptive invasion: " Well , we had to go in, it was clear for all to see that country X was not able to safeguard a vital international asset that all of Asia and Europe uses. But no need to thank us for the invasion, we were only doing what any country would have done."

    8. Re:What unstable countries ? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Just throw more manpower at it and do two lines. One to india then middle east, one through Russia. Easy.

    9. Re:What unstable countries ? by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      If you look at these areas with Google Maps terrain view, once you get to Kazakhstan (close to Urumqi), it's pretty much flat all the way to Europe (as Genghis Khan knew). Pakistan has a mountain range going from its north to the coast, and then it's a choice between Iran and Afghanistan. It could be a battle between the engineers and whoever's talking with India.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    10. Re:What unstable countries ? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      From an engineering perspective it appears to be less desirable to take a longer route and have to deal with getting through the highest mountains on earth than it would taking a more direct approach over relatively flat land.

    11. Re:What unstable countries ? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      from TFA:
      The last line to be built will connect Germany to Russia, cross Siberia and then back into China. The exact routes have yet to be determined

      looks like that is a planed line already. Why is there assumption that the line would go though the most hostile of countries? it could easly go along the southern borders of Iran and Pakistan. avoiding a large amount of conflict. Also in some of those cases ensuring a 0 stop trip would be enough to be allowed to skip most of the checkpoints.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    12. Re:What unstable countries ? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Also in some of those cases ensuring a 0 stop trip would be enough to be allowed to skip most of the checkpoints.

      Why would Iran and Pakistan allow China to build a rail through their countries without even stopping? That doesn't make any sense at all; it would cut them out of the economic benefits of being on the rail line. Plus, Iran and other Islamic countries would surely want checkpoints to make sure nothing's going through their countries that they don't approve of. Surely they would demand stops and checkpoints.

      Lastly, Iran is not exactly a hospitable place right now, and neither is Afghanistan. Afghanistan hasn't been a safe place for decades; that certainly isn't going to change in 10 years or even 100. Even if the train didn't stop, it'd be subject to terrorist attacks there, and in western Pakistan. Those countries are lawless, and the USA can't provide security indefinitely.

      Given that, the hassle of going through these countries is not going to be worth it, when they can go through civilized countries instead.

    13. Re:What unstable countries ? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Yep, China -> Kazakhstan -> Russia -> Ukraine -> Eastern Europe appears to be the easiest route engineering-wise. You would have to assume any route south of the Caspian and/or Black Seas would have to be a purely politically driven effort, or one geared towards the stops along the way providing more economic viability.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
  11. Don't they already have one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Don't they already have one? by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      That's not High Speed Rail.

  12. WTF ?? by vikingpower · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is complete lunacy. Connection China to Europe's High Speed network ?? Through all of Russia, which has no high speed trains ?? In TEN years only ?? It took France 24 years to come where it is now, the Germans about as much time. And the Chinese want to bridge a humongously greater distance in TEN years ?? Propaganda, not more and not less.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:WTF ?? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      One thing I can say from this: buy steel manufacturers' stocks.

    2. Re:WTF ?? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      With enough manpower, I don't see how it couldn't be done. China has an immensely large labor pool to choose from, as do the other nations involved. Get the route marked out using GPS and each country puts a HUGE effort into it. For at least as long as their leg of the project takes, it will be an economic boon that will create other jobs (refueling depots (if the train is non-electric), loading/unloading depots, etc.) that will last into the long term.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    3. Re:WTF ?? by oatworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget that most of the countries they have to go through are a bit more lax with environmental regulations and building codes than Western Europe (or the US, for that matter). I'm not saying this to suggest that China's going to go cheap on this; it's far too strategically important for them to cut corners. However, when you're not having to spend a decade on environmental impact studies and archaeological surveys before you lay a single track-equivalent, you can get quite a bit done rather quickly.

      It's the same reason FDR could use the WPA to build bridges immediately, while Obama can't.

    4. Re:WTF ?? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Nah, this is a Chinese high speed rail design. Buy plastic stocks instead.

      --
      SSC
    5. Re:WTF ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking about a country which built a shipping canal by hand, in the 10th century.

    6. Re:WTF ?? by slashbob22 · · Score: 1

      Looking at Chinese tech it will probably be Maglev.. I'm buying stocks in magnetic fields!

      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    7. Re:WTF ?? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say how many miles of track they are planning on laying down, but from Europe to China it is only 2000 miles or so (depending which cities exactly), I'm assuming they aren't going to lay new track all the way to Britain. The first transcontinental railroad in the US was 1777 miles, and it was done in 6 years by hand and during a civil war. So it doesn't seem unreasonable for China to be able to do this.

      I see this as a good idea for China. They have a ton of dollars, they ought to put it into something tangible as an inflation hedge (note that Warren Buffet recently did a similar thing by buying railroads).

      --
      Qxe4
    8. Re:WTF ?? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      And lots of lead paint.

    9. Re:WTF ?? by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Guess who it was laid by?

      Often times Chinese workers.

      China has no qualms about approaching slave labor to meet their needs. I bet the death toll for this connection will be very high.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    10. Re:WTF ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not so unique. People built a canal linking the Red Sea and the Nile in 510BC. And there were plenty of canals being constructed in Europe in the Middle Ages.

    11. Re:WTF ?? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      They really only need to go through ONE country - Russia - and they already have two Russian trans-Siberian lines in operation. Also, they won't start in Bejing and continue to London - they will start in a multitude of points in between to link and upgrade the existing infrastructure in order to provide some alternative routes to the Russian backbone system. So it is a kind of upgrade project that can be declared 'done' whenever they feel like it, since the whole thing actually already exists.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    12. Re:WTF ?? by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Actually building the damn thing may not be difficult at all, especially where straight lines already exist. Uprating to HS operation, may be a LOT simplier than you think, and quite possibly cheaper than building a (fast) highway.

      Russia has free LAND.

      Brtiain built HS1 ahead of schedule, and under budget, despite some very tricky engineering over difficult terrain and built up areas. The technology exists, and the trains exist. I really think 10 years is do-able.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    13. Re:WTF ?? by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      And you have stated the one point that most people miss.. HS trains can run on ordinary tracks too, albiet at lower speeds.

      When the channel tunnel originally opened, and Eurostar Services commenced, the British did not have their high speed link ready. It was hilarious watching these sleek beauties (http://www.helsinki.fi/%7Ejriihima/uk/uk_eurostar_capitals_thirdrail_london_2007_L.jpg) running along side aging 60's slamdoor relics such as these:
      http://www.girr.org/girr/england/slam_door_car.jpg

      Yet still the Eurostar was still often faster and more convenient than plane.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    14. Re:WTF ?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't think environmental regulations and building codes are a problem for high-speed rail in any country. First, building codes don't even apply; we're talking about train tracks here. There's no buildings, unless they want to put a station in. And environmental regulations aren't a problem either; even in Europe they have no problem with trains. Trains are far more efficient than cars, and it's not like China's going to put crappy old pollution-belching locomotives on these tracks. Environmental regulations are a big factor when you're talking about factories and refineries, not train tracks.

      Yes, impact studies have to be done in the US and Europe, but I don't think that's nearly as much of a factor as you're making it out to be. Train tracks don't have nearly the impact that even a road does, and certainly not a factory or other development. Archaeological studies are a big concern when you're doing a lot of digging, not when you're just laying tracks (and are more of a concern in places like Europe where there's been a lot more civilization for a long time, and there's a lot more buried; central Asia and the USA both don't have that much).

      The thing that causes problems in the USA when building train tracks or bridges is right-of-way. Especially on the eastern side of the country (which has the majority of the population), all the land is already owned by someone, and costs a lot. You can't build a train route between two points without having all kinds of problems with all the landowners in the middle, the roads in the way, etc. It's easier in the western US where there's a lot more open land, although there you'll have to deal with the Indian reservations.

      The central Asian countries China will be going through are not highly populated, and very undeveloped, so it'll be easy for them because there's no one and nothing in the way. It's not because of environmentalism or other government problems, it's because there's simply not much in these places besides barren, empty land. There's a reason most people live on the coasts, and not in the middle of large continents.

  13. and a Pachunnel? by asolidvoid · · Score: 1

    And why not toss in a high speed underwater tunnel to connect up with California's rail network while you're at it? Just think how much easier the territorial negotiations would be...

  14. This would be big by onyxruby · · Score: 3, 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!

    1. Re:This would be big by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      They'd have to build a rail line across Siberia, then cross the Bering Sea, then build a line across Alaska to Fairbanks, than another line across the Yukon and British Columbia to connect Chinese/Russian rail networks to the US and Canadian.

      About 4,000 miles of wild country, 90 miles of sea, and then another 2,200 miles to get that rail net hooked up the Canada and the lower 48.

      The Bering Straight is three times longer than the Channel is wide and lacks the infrastructure that France and the UK had in place. I'd ballpark 250 billion dollars to tunnel it.

    2. Re:This would be big by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      This would be big, but in practice how efficiently can it run with stops in every country desired by the host country?.

      Stops or stations? Express trains don't stop at every station.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:This would be big by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say 250billion, don't forget, Chinese labor is cheap.

    4. Re:This would be big by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger news would be if they started work on a railway from China to the US

      Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

    5. Re:This would be big by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Time isn't of the essence with 95% of all freight. In the past year, containership transit times have increased up to 50% due to slow steaming (to absorb massive overcapacity and increase fuel efficiency). It hasn't been as big an issue for shippers as you'd expect.

      Also, no train can be built that is more efficient than sea transport. Containerships are orders of magnitude more efficient than rail which is orders of magnitude more efficient than trucks which are orders of magnitude more efficient than planes.

    6. Re:This would be big by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

      Three words: great, circle, route...

      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

      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...

    7. Re:This would be big by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

      Three words: great, circle, route...

      Ah good point.

    8. Re:This would be big by Rufty · · Score: 1

      250 billion, that's what, about 2.5 banks?

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    9. Re:This would be big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bering Straight is three times longer than the Channel is wide and lacks the infrastructure that France and the UK had in place. I'd ballpark 250 billion dollars to tunnel it.

      So... a quarter the price the US spends in five years or so trying to arrest 1 guy? Unsuccessfully.

    10. Re:This would be big by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This would be big, but in practice how efficiently can it run with stops in every country desired by the host country?

      On most rail systems (and many bus systems as well) they have 'slow' trains that stop at every stop, and some kind of express train that goes directly to the destination on the other side without stopping. You can do that if you have enough passengers desiring to make that trip.

      --
      Qxe4
    11. Re:This would be big by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Materials and planning aren't that cheap. Besides at least half of the tunnel and 2,200 miles of rail and infrastructure would be US and Canadian. Thats not cheap.

      Gravina Island Bridge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

      Thats here in Alaska - $400 million dollars for a bridge, and thats in an area with some infrastructure. The majority of the route from the end of the Russian rail net to the Bering Straight and then again from Fairbanks Alaska has nothing. No roads there between Fairbanks and the villages. So everything would have to be barged or airfreighted in while the roads parallel to the rail lines are built.

      It'd cost a trillion dollars to do the whole route, at least a quarter of that for the bridges or tunnels.

    12. Re:This would be big by toastar · · Score: 1

      Fast rail is for passengers. Not freight. That can go by sea. Passengers need a direct route. Arcing north through Siberia and Alaska (past Sarah's place) is too slow, because even fast trains are slow compared to aircraft.

      Three words: great, circle, route...

      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-SEA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

      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...

      I think you don't give the GP's post enough credit.

      That Great Circle doesn't look so good from DC

      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PEK-DCA&MS=wls&PC=red&RC=navy&DU=mi

    13. Re:This would be big by John+Saffran · · Score: 1

      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

      The biggest challenge would be the permafrost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost that lies in much of the areas in question. Permafrost causes the landscape to change during the thawing/freezing cycles and is a known cause of damage to rail lines and presents a big engineering challenge overall. For example, "Passively Cooled Railway Embankments for Use in Permafrost Areas" http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0304109). Such project would be cool (no pun intended) to attempt, but the maintenance would be hellish. Shipping by bulk carrier is cheaper by far imho.

    14. Re:This would be big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be very efficient They run locals, semi-express and express trains on the same tracks. It's an operations and logistics issue, long solved by countries that run trains a lot.

    15. Re:This would be big by damasterwc · · Score: 1

      it's in the works... gotta stop the idiot kudrin from influencing russia to spend resources on supporting the carry trade so they don't cut funding to russian railways, it's something that has been on the table for a while with it recently brought up as a reality. i think the guy in charge of russia railways said it could be launched by the end of the decade... putin already announced an infrastructure buildup to the surrounding area so i would assume the reason is the assumption that a tunnel would be built. a global maglev landbridge system is the next logical and obvious step for human development.

    16. Re:This would be big by olau · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger news would be if they started work on a railway from China to the US.

      That's because you live in the US. For those of us living in Europe, it's pretty big news.

    17. Re:This would be big by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      A tunnel would be possible, but this area is one of the most seismically active in the world so itt would be an engineering feat of incredible scale.

      I've taken the train from Aomori to Hakkodate and it was quite an experience. I must confess to having been a bit nervous at the possibilities despite high Japanese engineering standards. I'm not so sure about a Russian-American effort, but it would be a great goal to work to bridge the two nations together. Especially, if one considers the cost savings of only having to load the rail cars once, rather than twice reloading for transfer to ship based transport.

    18. Re:This would be big by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=TNI-LAX&MS=wls&PC=%2523ff0000&RC=%2523000080&DU=mi

      This one might work with a huge space plane. Just dropping the passengers off along the way, we'll I'm sure Martin Baker could design something for ejection and reentry.

    19. Re:This would be big by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      From my bit of web research, cargo ships are far more fuel-efficient than trains for hauling cargo (1600 vs. 430 ton-miles per gallon), so sending cargo through Kamchatka and Alaska isn't going to be very helpful.

      Yes, it would be nice to take a high-speed train to China instead of being packed into a 747 like a sardine, but the cost of that line would be astronomical, and I don't think there's that much passenger traffic between the USA and China at this time.

    20. Re:This would be big by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, you would need to find a way to notably increase the efficiency of cargo trains for a tunnel to pay out. Having been packed like a sardine on a 747 going across the Pacific, I don't find the idea of being packed like a sardine on a train any more appealing.

    21. Re:This would be big by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Having been packed like a sardine on a 747 going across the Pacific, I don't find the idea of being packed like a sardine on a train any more appealing.

      Well it really depends on how they outfit the train. Trains are a lot more fuel-efficient than jets, and a small amount of extra weight doesn't make much difference in fuel consumption (unlike a jet, where omitting just the paint on the outside can save a lot of fuel over the jet's lifetime). Therefore, if they outfitted the train with nice, large, comfortable seats, and did other things to make it generally very comfortable for passengers on a long trip, perhaps even adding sleeper cars for an extra fare, I think they'd get a lot of passengers who would prefer a longer but comfortable trip to a shorter but miserable trip.

      Of course, this means they can't allow any American companies to be involved in this project, because they'd inevitably make the seats as small as possible, tack on extra fares for luggage, and in general make the experience just as miserable as riding in an airplane in order to save a few dollars, and no one would bother with it.

  15. Google it by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    This way, Chinese citizens will be able to quickly leave the country to somewhere that has Google access.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  16. Ominous by Adaeniel · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Invasion of Europe, anyone?

    1. Re:Ominous by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, 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!"

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Ominous by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sir (or Madam ?), it is virtually impossible to invade another country by train, a train being one of the most easily stoppable vehicles in the world. Captain J.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A train, yes, but WW2 comprehensively disproved the idea that it's easy to bring down a rail network. If you have enough manpower the biggest bomb blast is little more than a brief inconvenience.

    4. Re:Ominous by isorox · · Score: 1

      A train, yes, but WW2 comprehensively disproved the idea that it's easy to bring down a rail network.

      A rail network on home turf, where the native population is large, and the invaders are located hundreds of miles away. The Luftwaffe would take out England's lines, but they were easily* rebuilt. The RAF would take out European ones, the same applies.

      Now if Germany invaded, the local rail network in the southern counties could be easily sabotaged by the same natives that fixed them in the first place, remove a few sleepers and you'll take out a train at the same time. You'd need the invaders to outnumber the natives, at least enough to guard a hell of a lot of track. Moving to roads would be easier until the invader gained a strong foothold.

    5. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol that is so fucking stupid

      you are so fucking stupid

      read the article next time you idiot

    6. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but rail is a great way to get supplies to your army once you have invaded. It is hard to damage the whole rail system such that it wouldn't be fixable in a month and if you did then you would also screw your self as far as shipping supplies around your own country. If Vietnam had had a rail system the US would have easily kept Vietnam.

    7. Re:Ominous by henni16 · · Score: 1

      You can already do that in the other direction.
      A friend of mine went from Europe to Beijing by train for the experience and to visit a friend living in Beijing.
      She took a train from Germany to Moscow, got onto the Trans-Siberian railway, took a break in Mongolia to go hiking through the prairie for a couple of days and then continued on the Trans-Mongolian route of the railway to reach Beijing.

    8. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that, it didn't seem to prevent the U.S. from invading a sizeable chunk of North America in the 1800's, now did it?

    9. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lajos Benedek would beg to differ.

    10. Re:Ominous by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      If by "invasion" you mean an armed spearhead blitzkrieging into a territory then you are right. Yet, that is ineffective if you can't resupply your troops. That's where the train becomes vital, to keep up your logistics effort going and to avoid hindering your blitzkrieging advances just because you have to wait for the supply truck to catch up.

      And for a bit of cultural trivia, Spain and Portugal adopted the Iberian gauge with this very purpose in mind: to obstruct a possible Napoleonic invasion.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    11. Re:Ominous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not at all impossible however to supply the invasion by train.
      Major J.

    12. Re:Ominous by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

      The East India Company too started by securing an 'open' route to India... and what did they end up doing? China pursues a police of soft diplomacy - hey, we'll help you solve your problem today if you remember that we may call upon your service at our time of choosing. Look at the natural resources they are garnering for their future in Africa, see how they would rather work (which admittedly may run from legit to underhanded) with countries over the long haul and not just for short term expediency. The time for invasions and wars is long gone - today's invasions are based upon creating false (and often inappropriate) desire, data (to support it) and doubt (to refute any objections) backed by a big stick that is rarely (if ever used). Accuracy and honesty have nothing to do with it. Desire brings the participants together. Data sets the limits of their dialogue. Doubt frames their questions and malcontent. There is always a dissident somewhere here. Here on slashdot, he goes by the name of Anonymous coward. Damn them trains! Damn 'em!

    13. Re:Ominous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There wasn't any serious opposition in that case.

  17. Wow by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's some project. And China wants to fund it? That'll surely put them on the map as one of the world's superpowers.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Wow by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Guess what, they're already on track to become that (a superpower). I've heard of a story of a friend (non-American, but went to college there) who's leaving that country to go to China instead. Think of how everyone wanted to go to the USA, hmm, I don't know, since the Irish famine until up to 1 year ago? I'd wager in 5 years it'll be China which is the new destination...

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    2. Re:Wow by Jenming · · Score: 1

      Superpower, sure. That can be built on the backs of a lot of _really_ poor and rather oppressed people. Immigration destination? With the exception of professions that they can't teach in China that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
  18. UK's HS2 by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

    Plans for the new HS2 line were unveiled this week for the UK. 9 years of planning so far, start build date hopefully 2018, finish date 2025. This is only for the first phase to link London to Birmingham. China does the whole thing in 10 years.

    Ahh, we are so slow in the UK for infrastructure projects.

    1. Re:UK's HS2 by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what you can do when you don't care about human rights, property rights and environmental concerns.

    2. Re:UK's HS2 by mcfedr · · Score: 1

      seriously how many human rights concerns are there building a railway line? when i saw it had taken 10 years of planning and will take another 15 to build these new lines in Britain i was shocked at the level of bureaucratic crap that must be going on. there is no way it takes that long, if you actually just get down to it.

    3. Re:UK's HS2 by Macrat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The US isn't all that bad.

    4. Re:UK's HS2 by Jenming · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the trans-america railroad construction for a look at how serious human rights concerns can be.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    5. Re:UK's HS2 by hanabal · · Score: 1

      the road outside my apartment building has taken 1 year to re seal. its about 100m long. The road was ripped up almost exactly 1 year ago and last week they finally started to lay the new cobbles. They got half way on the first day then stopped. Its still half done now. I know its silly to compare but the bureaucracy of any infrastructure project in the UK is mad.

    6. Re:UK's HS2 by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid. Your statement would make sense if you're talking about things like dams, factories, etc. We're talking about a set of train tracks here, one that's going through a bunch of unpopulated countries full of wasteland in central Asia. What property rights? No one lives there. It's not like England, where every square foot of space is used by something or someone. What environmental concerns? There's nothing there, and trains don't have any impact on the environment compared to cars, planes, factories, subdivisions, or just about any other kind of human development. And where on earth do you get the idea that a rail line has any effect on human rights whatsoever? No one said they're building it with slave labor.

      No, it's amazing what you can do when you don't have to deal with all the bureaucratic idiocy that some other countries subject themselves to.

  19. Re:Ka-boom! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, 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.

  20. Great for Chinese exportation by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    ... and I don't mean just their cheap (and occasionally toxic) products.
    Truth is that much of the... alternative income (embezzlement, kickbacks) for bureaucrats tend to come from (large) construction projects. You can bet this product will have severe cost overruns.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  21. Multi-platform by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    It sounds crazy, but it's certainly possible to build a train that can accommodate multiple track widths. Hell, it's been done before.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  22. Re:Ka-boom! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Hope the passengers don't mind getting blowed up by terrorists.

    Blowed up real good?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dfoVqhQVyQ#t=1m10s

  23. Europe _and_ the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when was the UK not part of Europe?

    1. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Um, since always. it's an island. er, one and a half islands. In other news, Hawaii is not a part of North America. :P

    2. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "when was the UK not part of Europe?"

      In the 1940's UK was not part of Europe, they didn't surrender like France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark etc.

    3. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Chuq · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard residents of the UK generally deny they are part of "Europe", they like to keep a separate identity.

      --
      - Chuq
    4. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, since always. it's an island. er, one and a half islands. In other news, Hawaii is not a part of North America. :P

      You are thinking of "Continental Europe."

    5. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard residents of the UK generally deny they are part of "Europe", they like to keep a separate identity.

      Is Japan part of Asia?

      How do the Japanese people feel about Chinese and Koreans?

      I guess theres physical geography and human.

      Many Brits are so racist and xenophobic that they cannot be part of anything outside of their own island cluster.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Is Japan part of Asia?

      No, it's an island (or several islands really). Islands, by definition, are not part of continents.

      This is like asking if New Zealand is part of Australia, or if Cuba is part of North America, or if Malta is part of Europe.

    7. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong (on the "since always" part). The UK wasn't always an island; around 10,000-20,000 years or so ago, it was joined with mainland Europe, and the English Channel was simply lowlands. It's theorized that's how the native people (Picts, Celts, etc.) got there.

      This is a little different from Hawaii, which has always been an island (first one, then two, then three, etc.), as it was created by volcanic activity.

      So, the correct answer to "Since when was the UK not part of Europe?" is "10 to 20 thousand years ago."

    8. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Haha. Thanks for setting me straight. I didn't know that.

    9. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Right, so Britain is NOT part of Europe and the Chavs are dead right.

      IMO, allowing Britain into the EEC was a huge mistake. De Gaulle was correct to veto it.

      Allowing the UK into the EEC was as dumb as allowing Turkey into the EU today would be.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Right, so Britain is NOT part of Europe and the Chavs are dead right.

      As an American, I don't really know what "Chavs" are, other than disaffected youth or somesuch.

      Either way, whether Britain is part of "Europe" or not depends on whether you're talking politically or geographically. After all, the European Union has a bunch of totally non-European territories, such as Cyprus, Iceland, Greenland, French Guyana, Canary Islands, Azores, Bermuda, and various Caribbean islands like Aruba:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-Europe-Outermost-regions.PNG

      What I'm wondering is why countries like Croatia and Bosnia and even Norway aren't part of the union yet. It's a pretty good idea, as long as the Union doesn't infringe too much on each country's sovereignty. There's a lot of economic benefits from being part of a union. I don't know about admitting Turkey though. Their own Prime Minister recently said: "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it"

    11. Re:Europe _and_ the UK? by Chuq · · Score: 1

      This is like asking if New Zealand is part of Australia

      That's another kettle of fish completely, since Australia more often refers to the country, not the continent.

      New Zealand is part of Australasia or Oceania.

      --
      - Chuq
  24. FSVO "Feasible" by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tunneling under the Bering Straight is technically feasible, just look at the Chunnel and other such projects.

    Ignoring for the moment the differences in depth and geological stability between the Channel and the Straights.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:FSVO "Feasible" by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Pfft, all bureaucratic nonsense that, look at the map, it's *close*. We'll go around the active volcanoes. Mod P up and GP down mods, what kind of nerd takes that kind of stuff seriously?

    2. Re:FSVO "Feasible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deja vu, all over again. From right here on Slashdot about 3 years ago:

      "Bloomberg reports that the Russian government is proposing to build an underground tunnel between Russia and Alaska for transporting goods, electricity and natural resources. The tunnel would be twice as long as that between the UK and France. The $10 -- $12b cost is not something to be overlooked, but Russia claims the benefits would pay it off in 20 years. It would take 10 to 15 years to build, but being an Alaskan, it sounds good to me!"

    3. Re:FSVO "Feasible" by dkf · · Score: 1

      Ignoring for the moment the differences in depth and geological stability between the Channel and the [Bering] Straights.

      Depth isn't a particular problem; we can build tunnels almost as deep as we wish so long as we're willing to pay what it takes, and the Strait isn't that deep (similar depth to the Channel for the most part). There are road tunnels in Europe that go much deeper under water. OTOH, the geological stability... that's the real issue. Dealing with the tectonic boundary that runs through the Strait is the biggest technical issue for any proposed crossing. (Of course, the actual biggest issue is getting enough traffic to justify the cost...)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:FSVO "Feasible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dealing with the tectonic boundary that runs through the Strait is the biggest technical issue for any proposed crossing.

      What tectonic boundary? The North American Plate extends all the way to Chersky Range in eastern Siberia.

    5. Re:FSVO "Feasible" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Depth isn't a problem. According to Wolfram Alpha, the Bering Strait's average depth is only 160 feet, while the English Channel's is almost 400. I don't know about geological stability, however, and of course with the climate up there, construction would be a big challenge compared to UK's/France's mild climate.

  25. Why? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

    I too think this is cool, but are a couple of questions that get to my mind:

    • First, it is a BIG risk. A lot of investment depending of 14 countries getting to agree in something and keeping to agree in the future... i.e. if only one of these 14 countries has a change of government, a war with the neighbour from which the train comes to, etc. If the link comes down at the middle, it will be difficult to get benefits from traffic from/to only Kazakhstan, for example. And High Speed Tracks are expensive, both to build and to mantain.
    • Also, what would be the advantage? I mean, take that you get in from the South of Spain and from there you go, non-stop, at 300 km/h. For a track length of 15.000 km(and that assumes you can do almost a straight line from start to end) that would mean 50 hours. More than by plane, and that after making very optimistic calculus. Also think that I didn't include time from switching trains if you need to.
    • And finally, who would use it? Ok, there are are plane loads of flights that go to China every day from Europe and back, but those have better options by plane. And don't count on increasing traffic from/to the middle of the steppe as a way to make the numbers add.

    Also, I am a little worried about the ambiental impact of the project. High-Speed Trains are as contaminants as airplanes, and here you'll add also all the energy and impact of deploying and maintaining tens of thousands of kilomets of railways. Given that in this case traffic is from both of the extremes of the link(with all my respects to Russia and Turkey), it looks like that maybe planes are indeed a better approach. If it was about joining railway nets already built with some short links, it could, but building thousands of kilometers through desert and semi-desert, no way.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    1. Re:Why? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      One thing I can think of is that train stops are cheaper to build than airports. You could have 100 stops along a line, but each train stops at a different 10 stops. This makes it easy to service a lot of small places without comprimising travel time too much.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to your question is that you are assuming that the train lines will only be used to transport PEOPLE.
      The big chunk of money is coming from nightly goods transport. Also this kind train frees up the normal lines to do a lot (only) non human transport between a lot of places.
      This is the hidden economic secret of all the high speed lines across europe.
      50h (even 100h) to transport goods from Beijing to Seville is a bargain compared to the months to do it by boat.

    3. Re:Why? by godrik · · Score: 1

      As I said elsewhere I HATE flying. Flying is not confortable. I could work in a train during this time. At the same time, you can avoid the jet lag more easily since the trip is longer. When I fly from Europe to the USA it always take me more than two days to catch up with the time.

      So depending on the price and what I have to do, I might take the train.

      Moreover, a 50hours long train trip is COOL ! :)

    4. Re:Why? by isorox · · Score: 1

      # Also, what would be the advantage? I mean, take that you get in from the South of Spain and from there you go, non-stop, at 300 km/h. For a track length of 15.000 km(and that assumes you can do almost a straight line from start to end) that would mean 50 hours. More than by plane, and that after making very optimistic calculus. Also think that I didn't include time from switching trains if you need to.

      Firstly, London-Istanbul-Tehran-Delhi-Beijing is well under 7,000 miles. A route via Berlin and Moscow is 5,200 miles. The later, at 250mph, is under 24 hours.

      There is currently a direct daytime train from Essen to Vienna, which takes over 10 hours. It leaves at 05:00, and arrives at 15:20. I doubt anyone uses the train for the full length -- especially as you can get the 05:53, change once, and arrive at the same time.

      The train stops at many places en-route though, and the overlapping, intermediate journeys, make it viable.

      A London->Beijing train may be diehard (although 24 hours isn't that long a trip, the U.S. has multi-day trains, the Trans-Siberian takes a week), but London->Istanbul in 6 hours? That's competitive with the flight. Vienna-Tehran in 8 hours?

      London -> Delhi in 18 hours isn't that bad, leave London at 9AM Monday morning, arrive for 9AM Tuesday meeting. Leave Delhi 9PM Wednesday night, arrive 9AM Thursday morning, you'll be lucky to beat that on a plane, unless you're happy with 5 hours of sleep on an overnight. Given the BA LHR-TLV flight times, I'd much rather take a 10 hour overnight train, leave at 8PM, sleep at 10, wake at 8AM after 8 hours sleep in Tel Aviv for transfer to the Jerusalem office. The flight alternative is leave at 8PM and get about 4 hours sleep, arriving in Jerusalem about 6AM.

      Of course that's assuming an average of 250mph, which is unlikely (the 186mph Eurostar averages 110mph to Brussels, Thalys does 140mph from Paris), and magical scheduling, but if they can, there's plenty of viable long-distance passenger trips.

    5. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Of course that's assuming an average of 250mph, which is unlikely (the 186mph Eurostar averages 110mph to Brussels, Thalys does 140mph from Paris), and magical scheduling, but if they can, there's plenty of viable long-distance passenger trips.

      I'm not European, but isn't this slow speed due to the fact that western Europe is heavily populated? Much of the area this Chinese train would be traveling through is barren wasteland in Central Asia. There's probably no reason for it to travel slower than its maximum speed for most of the trip, at least until it gets east of the Urals.

      We have the same problem with high-speed rail here in the USA in the Northeast Corridor; the trains can't travel at their maximum speed because there's too much development around them. If they were going through the Nevada or Arizona deserts, they could go full-speed.

    6. Re:Why? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      High-Speed Trains are as contaminants as airplanes,

      Wrong. Trains use far, far less fuel to transport cargo than airplanes. The only thing more efficient than trains is cargo ships. Even trucks are more efficient than planes.

      Airplanes are the least environmentally-friendly way to transport anything. The only reason they're used at all is because of speed, and versatility (you don't have to build roads or tracks, only airports, so the initial capital expense is lower).

  26. That's what they said about the USSR by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    These Asian folks think long term, unlike short-sighted Western politicians.

    A lot of people said that about the USSR, but they were wrong. A politician is a politician, doesn't matter where, when, or under what circumstances, they all act the same.

    I think it's doubtful we will ever see a rail over the Bering Straight. I don't think it could ever be a cost-effective alternative to aircraft and ships. That water is deep, it would be too expensive.

    1. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of people said that about the USSR, but they were wrong

      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. Of course, the analogy with China's new plan fails unless you can equate Europe with Northern Siberia, but still there's no guarantee China's new East-to-West trade route will be economically viable given the alternatives already in place.

    2. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Jenming · · Score: 1

      Plus barely anyone lives on either side of the straight. The shortest route between the population centers of Asia and America does not go that far north.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    3. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, 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...

    4. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The other problem with centralized, long-term planning is that when a leader dies, a lot of the plans change course in some fashion, rendering those long-term plans vaporware or ineffective.

    5. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin's railway is described in Wikipedia

      The project apparently cost $10 billion in 1950 dollars.

    6. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about France, we voted for Sarkozy and very soon we won't have any public healthcare left, thank you :-).

    7. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by bmcage · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure it will not be economically viable:
      • 2 days of travel versus 10 hours with the plane
      • Boats are much bigger for manufacturing goods and arrive at logistical hubs
      • Goods trains are very, very, very long today, they go very slow compared to commuter trains, and yet they are more expensive than lorries
      • Electrical transport over long distances is expensive and difficult(still diesel trains in the USA no?)
      • ...

      So this is probably just: let's build better railroads, and while we are at it, let's use the technology of this decade: high speed railroads. Even if they go 50km/h once they are build.

    8. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      In democracies it happens every 5 years.

    9. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Corbets · · Score: 2, 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.

    10. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by nietsch · · Score: 1

      Maybe 10 hours flying, but that is omitting the 4 hours to spend in customs/security checks or whatever the fashion is then.
      The reason why America has not electrified a lot of their tracks is just plain costs, it is cheaper only for short-sighted people/managers to run diesels. With electricity, you can build a windmill next to the track for every few kilometres to defray the costs. You cannot do that with diesel, nor can you put more diesel back in the tank when you brake.
      Thinking that a diesel lorry is cheaper than a train of them is deluding yourself. Metal on metal contact for the wheels is much more economical, especially combined with the constant motion of a train. The problems/costs rise when the next step in distribution is not adapted or suited very well for train transport. But there are no indications that cannot be overcome with technology.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    11. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also won't have any white people left. You should have voted for Le Pen.

    12. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by bmcage · · Score: 1

      Maybe 10 hours flying, but that is omitting the 4 hours to spend in customs/security checks or whatever the fashion is then.

      If I take the high speed train to London I also need to arrive in time, and also need to pass customs and go through security. No time benefit there.

      The reason why America has not electrified a lot of their tracks is just plain costs, it is cheaper only for short-sighted people/managers to run diesels. With electricity, you can build a windmill next to the track for every few kilometres to defray the costs. You cannot do that with diesel, nor can you put more diesel back in the tank when you brake.

      The future is hybrid diesel/electric, storing braking energy. Several companies really would like to be able to buy that, but the governments are too slow to start the phasing out of the old tech.

      Thinking that a diesel lorry is cheaper than a train of them is deluding yourself. Metal on metal contact for the wheels is much more economical, especially combined with the constant motion of a train. The problems/costs rise when the next step in distribution is not adapted or suited very well for train transport. But there are no indications that cannot be overcome with technology.

      It is very annoying with our present industry to first have to load on a train, reconnect in a hub, go to another hub, reconnect, unload train on lorry, go with lorry where you need it. I really don't see much solution to that. I think a system of electrical lorries, which can drive on trains (like the channel tunnel crossing now) and go to the other side of the continent, makes more sense.

    13. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, 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/

      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-children and great grandchildren. In the USA, the next generations are expected to fund today's spending...

    14. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 in most.

    15. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      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?

      Not quite sure what that bit has to do with anything... my city (NYC) is very "liveable" too.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    16. Re:That's what they said about the USSR by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what is politically possible. If people want a high-speed rail, the politicians will jump on board so they can put their name on it and build their personal empire. If public support is mixed, however, politicians want to avoid the potential stain on their reputation.

      It's not like a politician will buck popular opinion and do the "right" thing (which is usually a subjective question anyway). Some do, but they don't last long or go very far. You are giving the leadership in Europe way too much credit. They just do whatever is politically expedient, the same as politicians do in the states. The difference is that people in Europe want high-speed rail and socialized health care, while in the US many people see these things as an unwanted intrusion by the state into their personal affairs.

  27. Never leaves manhattan... by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and will move more people than many continent spanning lines do. Sometimes it's not the size but what you do with it that counts!

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes it's not the size but what you do with it that counts!"

      Yeah that is exactly what she said...

    2. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by longacre · · Score: 1

      While that is true, I think my point is we can't afford to build it, and there's a high likelihood that after several more billion are spent, the funding will run out again and the project will once again be abandoned.

    3. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a man with a short track.

    4. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      How many persons you estimate will use the line daily? A quarter of a million, perhaps? $20 a ride it would never pay itself. I bet taxi is cheaper ...

      Just to show how big a number the "18 billion" is.

    5. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anubis350 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Public services don't always have to make a profit directly, or even necessarily fiscally justify themselves you know.

      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 completely perfect example of taxes being used for public gain, of proper government spending of capital too large and unprofitable for the private sector and too important to not be done (even if you disagree about the usefulness of this particular line I hope you get my point).

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    6. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      as long as it hits the right spots and fills properly, that's all a train needs!

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    7. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I did not want to imply public services should always make economic sense, I'm no libertarian.

      I just wanted to point out how ridiculously expensive it is. There might have been a cheaper and more sensible alternative, for example dedicate a road for public services (I have no clue about NYC so I am probably totally off).

      Just an example: the town where I live abandoned the plan to build car park under the city centre as the latest estimates run around 50 million (euros). That was for about a thousand places.

      The problem is that it was the only plan ... now they must start from scratch. Whatever they come up will never pay itself either, but they must do something, hopefully spending a fraction of the 50m.

      Sometimes government/city/... get too much "involved" (bribed, promised to contractors, politically cannot-back-up-or-lose-face, etc.) in one or two "trees" (plan) and cannot see the forest.

    8. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There might have been a cheaper and more sensible alternative, for example dedicate a road for public services (I have no clue about NYC so I am probably totally off).

      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 other American cities, the parking lot would take up most of northern New Jersey. Subways are the only answer. It is in the public interest to facilitate the rapid movement of people to their jobs. New York City produces a vast economic surplus which goes out to the rest of the country; it makes sense to spend public money on making that work more smoothly.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    9. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah guy, just keep telling yourself that!

    10. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! It's not the distance but rather the throughput.

    11. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or, you could save that $18 billion by not completing this plan that affects such a small area...But think of all the people...
      Then maybe companies/people will start to locate themselves further and further from city centers, thereby reducing congestion!
      I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out all the benefits of not stacking more and more people and jobs into a single area.

      And before you argue that moving business away from the city centers means more travel which means more gas,which means... I can cite living around D.C as an example. So many business want to locate in or immediately around the beltway. People then drive 60+ miles each way to get to those jobs. What? Now remember that that is 60 miles worth of gas, plus the extra 30-90 minutes of idling/10MPH travel that you do,because everyone else has the same idea as you.
      Moving the businesses out of the city center, as means that there is more space to accommodate housing you employees,so they don't have to live 60+ miles away.

    12. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 billion for 8 miles is hard to believe. Is there any link to that project?

      That sum is more than we likely will have spent on this project when it is completed, and it includes the two longest railroad tunnels of the world... and they're not all there is to that project (click on the "see also" links in WP to view the sub-projects, the scale of the whole thing is quite massive).

    13. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      How many persons you estimate will use the line daily? A quarter of a million, perhaps? $20 a ride it would never pay itself. I bet taxi is cheaper ...

      Taxi might not be cheaper once you factor in the cost of road maintenance and associated costs that go along with car travel that are all funded by the government.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    14. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Let's get some Chinese labor and build for 18 million instead of 18 billion that the Irish are charging now.

    15. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Taxis, you have to be joking. Now that's one expensive trip, but now maybe they could build just one above ground. I hear that could be cheaper. Just remove the taxi lines and replace with trains. Easy as pie.

    16. Re:Never leaves manhattan... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      MTA subway ridership averages 7 million daily and there is currently only one subway that services the East side of uptown Manhattan, a huge commuter corridor and home to about 500k people. The new subway line would probably support 500k rides per day or more times 365 days a year times $2 a ride divided by a real interest rate of 4% is about $9B. Still too low, right? But MTA fares are subsidized 50% by car taxes and tolls. There's your $18B.

      Should it cost $18B? of course not but hey... this is New York. Nothing costs what it should.

  28. Yay. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    Anything that makes it easier to move products, people and materials from one point on the globe to another can't be bad. Just as long as they keep corruption in check and don't crack too many eggs to make the omelette. As a westerner, it certainly looks like most of the problems of this type is tied to perverted intent and selfishness down the chain of command (with regional officials by necessity having to have quite a bit of power due to chinas sheer size). Any mainlanders/expatriates able to comment on how things like this usually winds up?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:Yay. by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      From WP and newsposts it looks like China has expanded it's internal railway infrastructure quite a bit in the past decade or so, and relies a lot on it, which would clearly give them the manpower/technical resources to do something like this.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
  29. Hmm by Karpe · · Score: 2, Informative

    "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world."

    No, it doesn't.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "China already has the most advanced and extensive high-speed rail lines in the world."

      No, it doesn't.

      Yes, it does.

    3. Re:Hmm by citizenr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it does, Ze Germans build it for them.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    4. Re:Hmm by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 0, Troll

      I would propose Japan as the leader in this category.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    5. Re:Hmm by jamesswift · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      i wish i could stop
    6. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most extensive, yes, in terms of miles of high speed track. Most advanced? Maybe so if you just measure speed. Also, they have a mag lev line in service, not just being tested, so that may put them near the most advanced.

    7. Re:Hmm by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      The Germans built some of the trains. I think the Chinese are starting to build their own now. Certainly their trains are faster than anywere else in the world: 350Km/h for conventional and 430Km/h for the (somewhat silly) maglev.

    8. Re:Hmm by hanabal · · Score: 1

      apart from the fact that china have almost 40% more high speed miles going at around 25% faster average speeds than Japan.

    9. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      status?

      not told[]

      told[X]

    10. Re:Hmm by uradu · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think he came for abuse. That's in 12A next door.

    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Germans built some of the trains. I think the Chinese are starting to build their own now.

      China ordered trains from Japanese, French and German companies. A good fraction are from Siemens. Part of the deal is that the trains are mostly built in China (apart from certain components).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH3

      Certainly their trains are faster than anywere else in the world: 350Km/h for conventional

      I think the Spanish version of the Siemens Velaro can also reach 350km/h, although I am not sure whether they really plan to go with that speed in scheduled services now (they did originally).

  30. High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclusive by Bruce+Perens · · 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.

  31. You WIN! by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    I was looking for the first unrelated US citizen whine post and yours is the first.

    That, sir, makes you a winner.

    And now let me look for the unrelated Obama (pro or anti, doesn't matter) post.

  32. Telecom cables, too by billstewart · · Score: 2, 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 railroad track than undersea.

    On the other hand, you do need signs saying "Hey, Bubba, Don't Dig Here" in many more languages....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Telecom cables, too by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you do need signs saying "Hey, Bubba, Don't Dig Here" in many more languages....

      Which unfortunately makes it more obvious where critical infrastructure targets are for the terrorists, if you believe in that sort of thing.

    2. Re:Telecom cables, too by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Not really; if they know the fiber runs along the tracks, the signs don't really give them additional information, and if they don't know that, they probably don't realize how important communications can be. If the signs tell them anything useful, it's that the sign location is more likely to have construction crews around than some hard-to-reach location.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  33. And I thought Alaska... by splinterBR · · Score: 1

    Would be the first to go. Obviously this is all a nefarious plot for China to set up troop-transport systems and invade Europe.

    --
    Rooting for the yankees is like rooting for herpes.
    1. Re:And I thought Alaska... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why invade with troops when you can invade with lead laced toys?

  34. Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a French guy living in China. Reading that China has the "most advanced [...] high-speed rail lines in the world" makes me jump on my chair. The HSR trains are rarely going to the announced 240 km/h top speed, most of the time, they aren't even reaching 200. China is just building it's first Shanghai to Beijing in 3:30 thanks to the French technology (to be ready later this year). It still takes 40 hours to travel from Shanghai to Wulumuqi. Exactly where is the advance here? The most advanced country in the world for train is France, with over 6 lines at 320+ km/h all over the (small) country and extending to the rest of Europe (Spain, London, Amsterdam)!

    1. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative

      The run from Shanghai to Suzhou and on to Nanjing often reaches 240 km/h...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha french are n00bs!

    3. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Wow, a French guy saying the French are the best at X? I guess I should believe this obviously unbiased source of unqualified information!

    4. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When I was in China last year, the train between Guangzhou and Hong Kong reached speeds a bit over 220km/h, and I think they've just recently completed Guangzhou to Wuhan which is a pretty long stretch :)

    5. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by takowl · · Score: 1

      The HSR trains are rarely going to the announced 240 km/h top speed, most of the time, they aren't even reaching 200.

      I think the reference is to this recent story about the new trains going up to 350 km/h (averaging 313), which have just come into operation. I'm thousands of miles away, so I can't check on the speed, but I think you (the French) might just have been overtaken.

    6. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Yes, right, and then start to slow down for the rest of 6:30 hours to Zhengzhou (only 1000km).

    7. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Do you think 220 km is a "high speed train"? We don't have the same definition then! In France, a normal train would go up to 180 / 200km. A fast train like the one they are building between Shanghai and Beijing goes up to 350 km/h. Our world record is about 580km/h.

    8. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are you living in China and not France? :p

    9. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by yzstone · · Score: 1
      I can't believe you are living in China right now. Have you ever read any Chinese news about the HSR from Wuhan to Guangzhou, which is service already? You may have a look at the following map: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/01/12/high-speed-rail-in-china/

      I'm a French guy living in China. Reading that China has the "most advanced [...] high-speed rail lines in the world" makes me jump on my chair. The HSR trains are rarely going to the announced 240 km/h top speed, most of the time, they aren't even reaching 200. China is just building it's first Shanghai to Beijing in 3:30 thanks to the French technology (to be ready later this year). It still takes 40 hours to travel from Shanghai to Wulumuqi. Exactly where is the advance here? The most advanced country in the world for train is France, with over 6 lines at 320+ km/h all over the (small) country and extending to the rest of Europe (Spain, London, Amsterdam)!

    10. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, I have travelled extensively by train in china and france. And this is spot on

      Jez

    11. Re:Where did you see hispeed rails in China? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      As an American who has ridden both Amtrack and the French TGV, I suggest to my fellow Americans that the French have much to be proud of and America has a lot of catching up to do.

      Americans would do well to become more educated, lest they make themselves look silly.

  35. Don't be such a worry-wart! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    First, it's already much cheaper to ship goods from Asia to America, thanks to the super-barges just crossing the Pacific. They have to go quite a bit further to get to Europe.

    Second, the United States already has a well developed rail system. The only reason we don't use it more is because fuel costs are so low in the United States.

    Never mind. We're screwed. The sky is falling. Agyugh! RUN FOR COVER!!!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  36. Re:Ka-boom! by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, 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

  37. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  38. Great idea! by amightywind · · Score: 0, Troll

    What a great idea. It turns a six hour flight into a 3 day ordeal! What a wonder.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  39. thank god in the usa by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    we have libertarians and rabidly distrustful antigovernment tea party assholes

    to save us, you know, from this evil socialism thing called economic progress

    i mean, if we paid more taxes to build things like high speed rail, we might actually live in that horrible thing known as a better country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:thank god in the usa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have libertarians and rabidly distrustful antigovernment tea party assholes

      to save us, you know, from this evil socialism thing called economic progress

      i mean, if we paid more taxes to build things like high speed rail, we might actually live in that horrible thing known as a better country

      The problem is that the libertarians have realized the politicians aren't interested in making a better country, it's cementing special interest groups' monies. So more taxes would just mean more pet projects rather than helpful projects.

  40. But will they call it... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...the Orient Express?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:But will they call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be called the Occident Express.

  41. The advantage of Trains over planes and boats by voss · · Score: 1

    Train locomotives can run on electrified lines, Boats and Planes cannot. Boats are great for cheap but they are not fast. Even a train averaging a mere 100 kilometers per hour can make the run in 4 days versus 2 weeks for a ship. Trains are safer than ships on the open ocean.

      Electricity for trains can come from any source including uranium based nuclear power plants (which china has) and coal power plants (which russia has). Trains are not dependent on oil.

    1. Re:The advantage of Trains over planes and boats by Al's+Hat · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Trains are safer than ships on the open ocean."

      Sorry, had to do it...all trains are unsafe on the open ocean while ships are at least built for it.

    2. Re:The advantage of Trains over planes and boats by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      A train on the open ocean is impossible. In the open ocean, on the other hand....

    3. Re:The advantage of Trains over planes and boats by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Trains are safer than ships on the open ocean.--

      Links please, remember piracy in and around Somalia doesn't count. There are things that can bring down trains like a suddenly active volcano for instance. Now shipping is dangerous in dangerous places. Why would you not have the same problem with the Chinese have to build through Iran, Pakistan, or some other nasty places if they go for the southbound India route which is the shortest way in.

  42. ..from King's Cross to Beijing in just two days... by alexmin · · Score: 1

    Through the places were you never want to be stuck in. Believe me, I _was_ stuck in some of those earlier in my life. Never mind 16 border crossings with underpaid corrupt goons with guns rummaging through your belongings. What could go wrong?
    Besides, 2 days it's 48 hours and plane London to Singapore is like 14. I cant wait and see a contractor or businessman saying "ah, instead of flying in on Sunday and going home on Thursday, lets leave on Friday night, then leave on Thursday and be back home on next Sunday. Two weekends spent in train instead of my family is just great". Same for vacationers too.

  43. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    To be used for freight a system like this would need four tracks at a minimum. Two for passenger and two for freight.

    First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
    -Contact 1997

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  44. A high speed money trail. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    "History has shown that economic interdependence helps to foster peaceful, albeit sometimes tense, negotiations."

    I'm not sure people have learned the lessons of the most recent "interdependence"? Just imagine the "stability" if it hadn't worked out?

    "The only thing we need to worry about in this equation is religious nutbags that won't listen to reason."

    Would economic nutbags be any better?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  45. Re:Ka-boom! by PPH · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

    Personnaly, I'd steer clear of Antigua and Barbuda. 250 troops and nobody is screwing with them. They must be pretty bad-ass.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  46. Ah, that old chestnut again by DesScorp · · 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.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Ah, that old chestnut again by MacroRodent · · Score: 1
      yet it's just now climbing out of a third world status that it's been in for centuries.

      But just barely for 2 centuries. Up to the beginning of the 19th century, Chinese technology and culture was way ahead of Europe. This is why there still is mystique about Eastern wisdom. Civilizations rise and fall, then rise again, it is not a linear progression upwards.

    2. Re:Ah, that old chestnut again by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Life is a little harder over there and their population wants a middle class and they are working their butts off to have it. They are about where we were in the 1960's. They and India are on the rise. The US is in decline and Europe is the wild card.

  47. Approval? by sixknowspring · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that other countries would be against having a random rail line running through their land.

  48. ...not a fair analogy because... by Psyqlone · · 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.

    1. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The foreign workers are often poor but citizens of Saudi Arabia seem pretty well off from what I've read.

    2. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Citizens of The United States of America seem pretty well off to me. But oddly enough there are claims that there are millions of homeless people and tens of millions of people living in poverty.

      While the head count is likely smaller in other western countries, I wouldn't be too surprised if the percentages are about the same.

    3. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The foreign workers are often poor but citizens of Saudi Arabia seem pretty well off from what I've read.

      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.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    4. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by jlar · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      i heard gas is like $0.12 a gallon and that the government subsidizes almost everything. Jobs teaching english in the SA seem to average around $35,000 a year, unlike those in Europe or Asia, which are generally less. Plus, friggin' falafel. Actually, now that I think of it, that actually sounds like a much better deal than I get here in the US... maybe its time to become a traveling english teacher.

    6. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.

      Where do they? Not in the US, that's for sure. Prosperity? Just look at our debt. Equality? We have the largest income inequality in the rich world. Enlightenment? Ok, so we let our women vote and own property. But that's about where it stops.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:...not a fair analogy because... by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

      where did you get this number? economic data on the KSA are not reliable or available.

      --
      --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  49. Mass Immigration by RadiusQ · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if China has thought this through. Have they considered the real possibility of a mass wave of immigration from economically unstable countries like the UK?

    1. Re:Mass Immigration by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if China has thought this through. Have they considered the real possibility of a mass wave of immigration from economically unstable countries like the UK?

      Machineguns at the borders to mow down the never-ending waves of chavs.

      Theres a kind of postapocalyptic imagery there that I like.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  50. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by finity · · Score: 1

    F--k... Bruce Perens? What the heck are you up to these days, man? Wait a second, I'll just click on your webpage and find out...

  51. Re:High speed rail is for poor people. by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, 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, etc starts to dominate the journey pretty quickly and even for international trips it can quickly get to be more hassle than just hopping on a train. Plane travel between European countries is super cheap, though, so it's still often worth doing.

  52. Infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it worked pretty well for the Romans, right?

  53. Hurts when others do it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The developed world has done it for long - so why not china ? Amazon forests are not being cleared for Brazilians to use - it is to see - to US, EU and now China. Cash is king - and China has Cash while US has debts. China took the fumes and manufactured crap for the US... and next time to see what else US has to offer. ANWR maybe ??

  54. it takes two by pydev · · Score: 3, 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.

  55. Re:Ka-boom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C. H. I. N. A... that's how you spell zerg.

  56. I call BullSh!t by youngone · · Score: 1

    I don't buy it. There are inconsistancies in the article, eg: "With initial negotiations and surveys already complete, " then "The exact routes have yet to be determined." Well which is it? You can't do a survey if you don't know the route. Also there's no way India approached China for anything. The Indians don't like the Chinese (at least at Govt level). This sounds really cool, but I'll bet a dollar its not going to happen.

  57. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by RobertinXinyang · · Score: 1

    Juts to tel you, the High-speed trains in China, also known as the "D" trains, do run on the same track as everything else. Of course, the maglev does not. But, the maglev is a very short run in comparison the the number of High-speed runs in China

  58. Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 2, 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 on major developments (bronze, iron, writing, etc.), and in many ways even behind the Maya. For example, the Middle East had writing 2000 years before China had even a rudimentary writing system. The oldest writing systems still in use today are Greek and Latin, predating (in the case of Greek) the development of the current Chinese writing system by more than 1500 years. Entire civilizations came, flourished for millennia, and perished in the Mediterranean before China even appeared on the scene.

    It's probably best to view Chinese civilization as analogous to Northern Europe, in both age and history, really taking off only during the first millennium. And it remains to be seen how much of Chinese civilization developed independently and how much was derivative from the Middle East.

    1. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by hanabal · · 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.

    2. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by anss123 · · Score: 1

      I suppose that it's not impossible that if the situation was reversed - Industrial revolution in China - Europe would be the "old empire" and China would be the squabbling states. Amusing thought, but the Yellow river's tendency to flood and kill millions probably set China back enough that it was unlikely for China to industrialize first.

      One interesting difference between Europe and China is how technology was handled*. For instance, in both Europe and China water driven clocks were invented "around the same time". Both works of brilliant men. But then, over the next hundred of years the European clocks got gradually more sophisticated, while China seemed to reinvent the clock every time they needed one. For some reason "high end tech" tended to live and die with the pioneers - For instance, they had big ships, simple rockets, crude guns, workable cannons before any Europeans had sailed to China but by the time the Portuguese came for a visit they happily bought arms from them, so I suspect the people that knew how to make that stuff died and their knowledge was left in some dusty archive for no-one to see.

      *Not that I've studied the subject mind you.

    3. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      It's probably best to view Chinese civilization as analogous to Northern Europe, in both age and history, really taking off only during the first millennium. And it remains to be seen how much of Chinese civilization developed independently and how much was derivative from the Middle East.

      Interestingly, both Chinese and Northern European civilizations took off within a few generations after the bubonic plague receded. You have to wonder if the plague was nature's way of practicing eugenics on us.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    4. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      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.

      No, you just don't understand.

      The Greek script has been in continuous use in its modern form since about 1400BC; the modern Chinese script dates back to maybe 200-700AD. The earliest writing systems in the Middle East go back to at least 3400BC, 2200 years before any documented Chinese writing (oracle bone writing, a rather restricted form). In fact, it is far more plausible that China got writing via the Silk Road than that the Chinese invented it independently.

      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.

      And then it split again a few centuries later, then there were civil wars, rebellions, more splits and unifications, religious divisions, even more splits, etc. Not much different from what Europe experienced with Rome and afterwards. But parts of Europe have a history that goes back much further still.

      As far as contemporary cultures are concerned, there are very few that can date back as far as 200BC.

      Well, at the scale and fuzziness at which you define a "culture", we have four major surviving cultures: China, Europe, India, and the Middle East. Of those, China is the youngest.

    5. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that it's not impossible that if the situation was reversed - Industrial revolution in China - Europe would be the "old empire" and China would be the squabbling states

      Well, I think what made Europe so successful was the combination of having an ancient and shared culture on the one hand, and fierce competition among states on the other. Although China started out the same way, at some point it unified and stagnated. And from that point of view, the EU may not be such a good thing after all.

    6. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      the modern Chinese script dates back to maybe 200-700AD

      An average well educated Chinese person can read and understand Chinese written in 200BC and beyond. The form of the characters were standardized by the Qin emperor in around 200BC, and there were few modifications throughout the millenia.

      Not much different from what Europe experienced with Rome and afterwards.

      The Roman Empire simply ceased to exist forever. China is still on the map, and has a traceable cultural and political heritage that goes back to at least the Qin empire and beyond. There were long periods of splits, but the empires that formed after were just like the ones before, culturally, politically and ideologically.

      In fact the stagnation (relative to the rapid rise of the west in the last 500 years) is probably what led to the downfall of the "great" Chinese empire.

      I agree that there is a lot of "my Chinese dick is longer than your western dicks" kind of meaningless boasting, but I do feel compelled to rectify some of your points that I see as invalid.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    7. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      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.

      If you're talking about political entities, empires and kingdoms and states, it is common knowledge that China was splitted and divided and invaded for much of its history.

      But as a civilization, China did indeed exist continuously for at least the past two millenia. I really can't fathom why you could claim otherwise. It's definitely not "one of the oldest civilizations" compared with the ancient greeks, egyptians and babylonians, etc. but age-wise it truly has a 2000+ year history. Educated Chinese can read the texts written 2000 years ago, the ethnic "Han" majority derives its name directly from the Han empire 2000 years ago, and the political system had little significant change until 100 years ago. And this is not only true today, but for the continuous period of 2000+ years.

      I'm not saying this makes the Chinese "great". If anything it is evidence of stagnation.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    8. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by hanabal · · Score: 1

      Well, at the scale and fuzziness at which you define a "culture", we have four major surviving cultures: China, Europe, India, and the Middle East. Of those, China is the youngest.

      European culture has nothing at all in common with what was in Europe 2000 years ago. Very few people understand the common languages in use back then. No one follows anything remotely like the Roman culture or beliefs.

      As far as the middle east is concerned. I doubt you will find anyone that could argue that modern Middle east culture is anywhere near what it was like 2000 years ago. Islam wasn't invented. In fact, 2000 years ago, vast swaths of the middle east were Roman or Greek. These cultures have completely vanished from the earth.

      Most modern Indian languages emerged around 1000 years ago. Modern Indian culture is heavy influenced by Buddhism which began around 2400 years ago. Give a few years for it to spread and define the culture so it won't be much older than Chinese if at all.

      Also Modern Chinese culture is still heavily influenced by the teachings of Confucius who lived around 500BC.

    9. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      The form of the characters were standardized by the Qin emperor in around 200BC, and there were few modifications throughout the millenia.

      And Greek script was standardized around 1400BC, while Latin script was standardized around 500BC. There have been few modifications since.

      An average well educated Chinese person can read and understand Chinese written in 200BC and beyond.

      So can an average, well-educated Japanese, but that doesn't make them Chinese. It's an accident of logographic writing systems that people can decipher writings in what really are unintelligible dialects or languages to them. On the other hand, the relationships between European "languages" are far closer than they may appear on the surface.

      The Roman Empire simply ceased to exist forever. China is still on the map, and has a traceable cultural and political heritage that goes back to at least the Qin empire and beyond.

      But Europe is on the map. The term "Europe" originated in around 500BC and referred to northern Greece, the region where European culture comes from. It has continuously existed and expanded since then. The Roman Empire existed for nearly 2000 years as a political entity in various forms within Europe. So, you have multiple names referring to different aspects of a cultural continuity, just like in China, you have "Han" and "Qin" and others.

      In fact the stagnation (relative to the rapid rise of the west in the last 500 years) is probably what led to the downfall of the "great" Chinese empire.

      Yes, China has been more politically stagnant than Europe. But Europe's dynamism doesn't mean a break with the past; quite the opposite is true: a lot of modern European politics, culture, and ideas derive from culture and writings that are more than 2000 years old.

      I agree that there is a lot of "my Chinese dick is longer than your western dicks" kind of meaningless boasting, but I do feel compelled to rectify some of your points that I see as invalid.

      And I'm saying your interpretation of history is inaccurate because you're confused by superficial issues like the use of logographic writing systems or the name that a region gives itself. Europe's political history has been somewhat more dynamic than China's, but its culture, ideology, and linguistic traditions go back much further than China's.

    10. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      European culture has nothing at all in common with what was in Europe 2000 years ago. Very few people understand the common languages in use back then. No one follows anything remotely like the Roman culture or beliefs.

      That's utterly wrong. European culture and language is deeply rooted in European classical antiquity. That's where European individualism, democracy, science, engineering, philosophy, poetry, and literature come from. The languages and literature of classical antiquity (Greek, Latin, Hebrew) are still taught in many schools. But Europeans don't have to be educated in the language, literature, and philosophy of classical antiquity, it is just pervasive all around them. If they don't get Oedipus as a Greek drama, they get it as part of Harry Potter or Final Fantasy X.

      As far as the middle east is concerned. I doubt you will find anyone that could argue that modern Middle east culture is anywhere near what it was like 2000 years ago.

      Come on! The Arabs and Jews are fighting the same war they have been fighting for thousands of years, living in the same depressing buildings and worrying about the same depressing things.

      Most modern Indian languages emerged around 1000 years ago.

      And modern standard Chinese (Mandarin) emerged around 500 years ago. The fact that a Chinese can decipher older logographic inscriptions written in other languages doesn't change that. So what's your point?

    11. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by hanabal · · Score: 1

      You know what. I wrote a large reply but after reading through it I realised that you and I simply disagree on what defines culture. We are not alone as the definition of culture is not clear and many arguments similar to our have sparked up since the dawn of time.

      From my perspective, the Chinese culture is old and worthy of admiration from its many feats, just as the Greek and Mesopotamian Cultures. I suppose even though I was brought up in the "western" culture I don't feel any connection at all with Roman or Greek cultural teachings. I don't feel that Aristotle had the same culture as me. The Greek people I talk to admit that modern Greek culture is not the same as ancient Greek culture (Although they wish it was). All of the Chinese people I have talked to see a deep and direct connection with Confucius and rightly or wrongly believe that he and the people around him lived in roughly the same cultural background as modern China. Maybe that is a result of how they are taught, but seeing as culture is taught then that is fine.

      Of course cultures evolve. A culture of the descendants of ancient Greeks will have many influences from ancient Greece. However just like biological evolution, given enough time a totally new species emerges. Where to draw the line is tricky and we seem to differ on this point.

    12. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      You know what. I wrote a large reply but after reading through it I realised that you and I simply disagree on what defines culture.

      I don't think we actually do. I think you simply don't see the history behind your own culture, and you have fallen prey to deliberately created Chinese cultural myths.

      I don't feel any connection at all with Roman or Greek cultural teachings. I don't feel that Aristotle had the same culture as me.

      Whether you "feel" a connection doesn't really matter; your education, your language, your way of thinking are a product of 3000 years of European history and culture.

      All of the Chinese people I have talked to see a deep and direct connection with Confucius and rightly or wrongly believe that he and the people around him lived in roughly the same cultural background as modern China.

      Yes: that is a belief deliberately inculcated into the Chinese people. But it is not true; it is a fiction created for political purposes.

      From my perspective, the Chinese culture is old and worthy of admiration from its many feats

      Well, that's the question, isn't it: has Chinese culture actually produced "many feats" or has it been a stagnant, unimaginative society throughout its history? The question is quite important now, since China wants to influence the rest of the world with its culture and ideology.

      I've always found Chinese culture interesting. But after studying it for a while, I don't admire it anymore. Although it has some positive aspects, in the end, I don't want to live in anything like it. And a lot of its supposedly positive aspects are myths.

      Or, to put it in politically incorrect terms, I find Chinese culture inferior to European culture, and I think Europe and the US should continue to strongly oppose Chinese attempts to influence global politics and culture.

    13. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      Where to draw the line is tricky and we seem to differ on this point.

      We don't need to pick an absolute place. I'm saying that if you draw the line such that you consider Chinese history continuous since 200AD (or even 500BC), then you certainly have to consider European history to be continuous since at least 800BC or even earlier.

      The way to establish that is to examine individual areas of culture--philosophy, engineering, science, language, art, mythology, religion, etc.--and trace them back in both cultures. If you actually do that carefully, you'll find that Europe has longer continuity in more areas than China.

    14. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      The Greek people I talk to admit that modern Greek culture is not the same as ancient Greek culture (Although they wish it was).

      Of course it is not. The culture of classical antiquity moved geographically from Greece and Rome to Germany, France, and England, and eventually North America.

      The majority of people learned in the classical languages (Latin and Greek) were intellectuals outside Greece and Italy. For many centuries, you couldn't be an intellectual anywhere in Europe without at least speaking Latin. Until the mid-1950's, places like Harvard still required students to learn classical Latin and/or classical Greek. The Holy Roman Empire existed until the 19th century in what is now Germany, France, and Italy.

      But similar movements and geographic shifts occurred within China; they are part of any large, living culture and society.

    15. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by hanabal · · Score: 1

      and I think Europe and the US should continue to strongly oppose Chinese attempts to influence global politics and culture.

      Why didn't you say that at the start. this is your actual point and you didn't need to try to insult Chinese culture to get it across.

    16. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      So can an average, well-educated Japanese, but that doesn't make them Chinese. It's an accident of logographic writing systems that people can decipher writings in what really are unintelligible dialects or languages to them.

      No, an average Japanese can't. There have been great Japanese scholars working on Chinese studies and they sometimes produce work that surpasses Chinese scholars, but the average well educated Japanese simply won't understand the Chinese writing.

      It's not like modern Chinese is simply using the same characters in a different way, and it's definitely not a different language. We will never know how the ancient Chinese speak exactly, and the spoken language will probably be unintelligible to anybody alive, but if that's what you're arguing, then I don't understand Shanghainese at all -- does that mean it's not Chinese?

      Honestly, I read Records_of_the_Grand_Historian in my leisure time, and it's completely intelligible and understandable, and it's not like I'm deciphering the "logographic" characters one by one. If "logographic" characters itself makes a language more intelligible, then why are these things so hard to understand?

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    17. Re:Chinese age is a fiction by pydev · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you say that at the start. this is your actual point and you didn't need to try to insult Chinese culture to get it across.

      It is unavoidable that one "insults Chinese culture" in a rational discussion about world history because the facts contradict what the Chinese believe and say about their culture. That's no accident either: China has been using myths about its culture as a domestic and international political tool for a long time. And that's why it's important that people like you don't blindly repeat ideas about "ancient Chinese culture" or "Chinese feats".

      And I think you should familiarize yourself a little more with your own culture and heritage. You'll find that European culture and history is far older and richer than China's.

  59. It's technically possible by Animats · · Score: 1

    The first US transcontinental railroad, with 1,700 miles of track, took only six years to build. Without heavy earthmoving equipment. There was only one power shovel on the whole project. The Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to Vladivostok, took 18 years to build, opening in 1913. That was a much tougher job than what China is proposing. It's already possible to get from Beijing to Hamburg by rail. More than possible; it's a major freight route.

  60. PS it does by jamesswift · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country

    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 ;)

    --
    i wish i could stop
    1. Re:PS it does by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      And for crying out loud this slashdot crowd is just knee-jerk idiots that china bash without reason - giving that comment 4 insightful. God help us, I thought this crowd is educated.

    2. Re:PS it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's area: 9,598,094 square km

      Japan: 377,873 square kilometers

      So China's ratio is smaller and throw in that Japan is a mountainous chain of islands (It's like saying cars in Utah go faster than in Colorado and failing to mention the salt flats and Rockies). Your stats do nothing to prove that China's is more advanced. I'm not say that China's isn't more advanced, just that your logic sucks.

    3. Re:PS it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the parent's logic suck? Would China's system suddenly become more advanced, if they were to grant Tibet independence?

  61. China has 3 levels of quality in manufacturing by unity100 · · Score: 1

    if you ever done business with them, the first thing the contractor on the phone is going to ask, which quality do you want your items. first quality is first quality. your ordinary product produced and sold everywhere, like in usa like in europe. third is the 'chinese' products you know. the cheapest.

  62. completely banal entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    completely banal entertainment

    Consider who is being entertained before you label it.

  63. you dont get it by unity100 · · Score: 1

    what he meant was 'had the nations been trading properly with each other like post ww2, these wouldnt happen'. and he is partially right.

    what all accounts miss is the goddamned wall street crisis, (endless history of repetitions) bringing entire world economy down, and causing fundamentalist ideologies to pop up everwhere.

    1. Re:you dont get it by damasterwc · · Score: 1

      no, world war two happened because world war one happened... they should be considered the same war... and we have the brits to thank for that one... it's a pity we sided with the wrong side in world war 1. the japanese attacked us because a british-japanese alliance drew up such a plan decades before it happened.

      the world isn't as boring and simple as you think it is. there's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that aren't discussed in history textbooks and in the media. world war 1 was a repeat of the seven years war... that's where the inspiration came from... create a war to stop economic development... railroad, land transport that would eclipse sea transport... who was the dominate sea power and dominated trade thru the seas?

      thank you china for stepping up and developing land transport. this has been a hundred years coming...

    2. Re:you dont get it by unity100 · · Score: 1

      no its not the case. there are factors leading up to world war 2 from 1, however, there are more important underlying social concepts.

      ideologies matured.

      1789 created the equality principle. but societies of the world were too immature to suck it up properly. instead, it got translated into a 'national ego' format, creating nations and nationalism. 19th century passed with the growing pains of this nationalism phase, leading up to imperialistic ego.

      world war 1 greatly cut down these egos to size. people saw that millions of lives got spent over 'nation' and 'empire', and suddenly a huge deal of change happened in the social psychology. brits, very imperial and proud just 6 years ago, didnt want to hear the word 'war' for any reason whatsoever for example. national egos got chopped down everywhere in europe, leading to formation of a more civil mindset to be. however this time, with the nationalism gone, there came the ideology phase. which ideology, rather than which nation would be paramount and rule. this was aided with the wall street crash of course.

      the gauntlet was thrown in ww2, and we are living in the ideology that won.

      that said, brits really do stir up messes in a lot of places around the world. they should be cut down to size.

    3. Re:you dont get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, world war two happened because world war one happened... they should be considered the same war... and we have the brits to thank for that one... it's a pity we sided with the wrong side in world war 1.
      the japanese attacked us because a british-japanese alliance drew up such a plan decades before it happened.

      And worse still, we sided with the wrong side in WWII as well. Unfortunately that's not something you can get away with saying in polite company these days. If you wonder why the west is such a cluster-fuck these days, the answer to that question always seems to lead back to WWII.

    4. Re:you dont get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gauntlet was thrown in ww2, and we are living in the ideology that won.

      Yes. Unfortunately.

    5. Re:you dont get it by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Which ideology would you have rather won? The Nazis? The Communists?

    6. Re:you dont get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The communists did win. That pretty much leaves the Nazis.

    7. Re:you dont get it by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      They sure did, by becoming capitalists themselves.

  64. Funny Lot by Das+Auge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Americans, of which I am one, are a funny lot.

    When things are going well, we're a spoiled, petulant group of people. We give no thought to the future or even the present. We will let things get as bad as the possibly can in a first world nation.

    However...

    We are at our best when things are at their worst. We will support each other. We'll give to one another when we have almost nothing individually. We become mindful of the future.

    Case in point: if you get a sizeable force and set it against us, we will work together as though we were one being and turn our entire nation into a war machine second to none.

    So, in the long run, I'm not too worried.

    1. Re:Funny Lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are at our best when things are at their worst. We will support each other. We'll give to one another when we have almost nothing individually. We become mindful of the future.

      And you think this is particular to the US?

      Case in point: if you get a sizeable force and set it against us, we will work together as though we were one being and turn our entire nation into a war machine second to none.

      You also spend for your war machine second to none, and I mean that literally.

    2. Re:Funny Lot by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      We are at our best when things are at their worst. We will support each other. We'll give to one another when we have almost nothing individually. We become mindful of the future.

      ...

      if you get a sizeable force and set it against us, we will work together as though we were one being and turn our entire nation into a war machine second to none.


      "We move as one. We are at our best when we move together, and we
      are at our worst when we move together. When our leader was killed
      by your people, we went mad together. We stayed mad for a very long
      time -- a madness that almost consumed your world."

      So, in other words, you are Minbari.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    3. Re:Funny Lot by evanspw · · Score: 1

      dude, that was quite a while ago. these days, i don't think so. it's totally run for the benefit of the super-rich, and they couldn't give a shit.

      the only way to get anything to change in the USA is to make it profitable for lawyers to spearhead it. i'm quite serious. the legislature just has to amend things slightly to give litigation a fighting chance, and you can fix anything. want health care reform, then make it feasible to sue an HMO for lying or gouging or collusion (it isn't now). want to fix manufacturing, make it possible to sue corporations for work practises overseas they couldn't do in the US. want to fix the tax base, stop corporations parking themselves off shore in tax havens. want to stop the banks mispricing risk and keeping dodgy debts off the books, make it easier to delve into their workings on threat of suit by shareholders etc.

      once lawyers start making hay, everyone else will fall into line!

      --
      Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
    4. Re:Funny Lot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We are at our best when things are at their worst. We will support each other.

      I have only one thing to say to show those days have gone: "Heck of a job Brownie!"
      There are a lot of elements in US society actively preventing the goodwill of the population from getting much traction. Each act of charity is in danger of getting blocked simply because somebody else wants to make a quick buck and they have the right connections.

  65. aww c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's up with all the cynical attitudes?
    Cut the chicoms some slack here.
    Maybe they're just interested in becoming the dominating power...c'mon now...

    On a more serious note, Bering straits, tunnel, America,...

  66. It will be more cool if they build a HSR by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    from Beijing to Buenos Aires via Shenyang, Harbin, Khabarovsk (Russia), Magadan (Russia), Anchorage, Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tijuana, Mexico City, Guatemala, San Miguel (El Salvador), Managua (Nicaragua), Santo Domingo, Santiago (Costa Rica), Panama, Bogota (Columbia), Caracas (Venezuela), Georgetown (Guyana), Sao Luis , Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, Montevideo (Uruguay), and finally Buenos Aires.

    No more TSA full body scan bull shit.

  67. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My take is that the rail links between China and India are abysmal so they need to be rebuilt anyways. If I were China (or India) I would be looking at double-stacked, double-tracked freight. Once you've laid that much bed and wire, it is almost trivial to throw in an extra high-speed rail for passengers and fast freight. You don't really need two because high-speed trains will be a lot less frequent than subways and a lot shorter than freights so you can get away with a passing lane every, for example, 450 km (300km/hr trains every 3 hr).

  68. Re:Ka-boom! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

    No, that's how you spell turtle-rush.

  69. WW1 Berlin-Baghdad Railway by rusl · · Score: 1

    This could lead to another world war just like the first Occidental-Oriental Railway did in 1914. Imagine the trade advantages.

    --
    Stupidity is its own reward.
  70. What's in the minds of the mods around here? by jamesswift · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to antagonise the parent, but I have to remark how it's fascinating to watch the parent post go from +5 Insightful to +5 Interesting and all the while I and other posters have provided citations showing that the parent post is, in fact, neither Insightful nor Interesting.

    I'd love to see time series graphs of mod points for these posts.

    --
    i wish i could stop
    1. Re:What's in the minds of the mods around here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concur.

      Evidently people waste their precious mod points even if they have no idea whether a post is factually correct. Now, I don't expect mods to fact check every comment they encounter but it's ridiculous to moderate a comment, if you don't know whether the factual assertions in it are correct. There are plenty of other comments to moderate instead.

      This comment in particular is of course not only factually wrong, it is also IMNSHO arrogant and condescending but that might just be why people have modded it up.

  71. and NOW we get to why the usa was whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ya all that china propaganda even my privately run isp in Canada made a trip
    gee wonder what Canada will do without NAFTA

    GO FOR IT make our day resource pigs

  72. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  73. China, India, Pakistan Iran, Turkey, EU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Hindu has the story: "One proposal involves a line running from Kunming, in south-western Yunnan province, to New Delhi, Lahore and on to Tehran, according to Wang Mengshu, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and one of the country's leading railway consultants." http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article244282.ece

    Iranian protestors are mainly centered in the cities, so maybe they are not so bad.. On the other hand some parts of India still has train robbers targetting freight transport.

  74. Rail lines, power lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One has to see this in light of the Orient Express line the Germans attempted to build from Berlin to Bagdad. This would have been a trade link and the oil feed they needed to develop their economy.

    But the British economy and collapsing empire was no match for a game against the Germans on a levelled playing field.

    Soon enough troubles appeared in the Balkans and World War I broke out. And the line stopped in Turkey.

    We shall see what's ahead of the train this time.

    For a dot connecting reading of our 20th century history, see William Engdahl 's Oil Geopolitics in the 20th century

  75. Comes with massive westward migration of Chinese by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1

    I already mentioned this a few days ago (China's exploitation of colonized lands) in the thread about China's new plans to extract a century's worth of energy out of Tibet, but some people didn't think Tibetans (or Uighurs or Mongols) themselves and their status as disenfrancised and repressed people had anything to do with China's colonial resource grab policies...

    Well, here again the fine article in Inhabitat goes for the single-minded technocrat approach, not unlike the glory-hungry regime in Beijing, but wouldn't it still be at least remotely relevant to also mention the other non-trade, non-technological aspects of Chinese Communist Party's rail expansion plans?

    Namely that a scholar at a Chinese thinktank has stated that "we foresee that in the coming decades, hundreds of millions of people will migrate to the western regions, where land is empty and resources are untapped".

    Why is it only a horrific never-forget issue when the 1930s German dictatorship planned for a little Lebensraum expansion?

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  76. supply and demand by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls to zero.

      Total genius! Where'd you get this gem from? LOL!

    2. Re:supply and demand by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Total genius! Where'd you get this gem from? LOL!

      Isn't it obvious? Take a look at digital media. The supply can be (basically) infinite, so how much do people value songs at? Nothing. They download them for free.

      The value of something is zero if nobody wants to buy it.

      Too many houses?

      http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/05/05/in-bank-demolition-echoes-of-the-great-depression/tab/article/
      http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/05/05/what-a-waste-new-homes-demolished-by-bank

      Knock em down.
       

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:supply and demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the demand and supply are equal?

  77. Re:High speed rail is for poor people. by Alistair+Hutton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At approximately 250-500 miles, city-centre to city-centre train travel beats out both car and plane in terms of convenience. And that's not even with high speed rail, just regular intercity services.

    --
    Puzzle Daze is now my job
  78. Europe's raw resources? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which raw resources? We don't have any. Europe has been importing all its stuff for decades.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Europe's raw resources? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Thats not strictly correct. There is just a lot of people with houses on the raw resources.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  79. Don't know by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Air travel is fast and all but also bloody inconvenient. Slower rail travel could be a lot easier, no chance of being diverted, more cargo, safer, more comfortable.

    Air travel has gotten popular mainly because the alternatives are far worse and long distance rail travel is often impossible. But I have actually taken the train to Italy and swiss years ago, and damn it was comfortable. Yes, it takes longer, but if you are on a holiday, then just maybe doing the Orient Express as part of the journey is actually a bit intresting? More intresting then being a sardine for half a day?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  80. Meanwhile in Britain by daffmeister · · Score: 1

    We're still struggling to link London and Birmingham. e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/18/high-speed-rail-route

  81. Reboot? by Phoghat · · Score: 1
    Time for a reboot of "The Orient Express

    Pierot rules!

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  82. All train tracks lead to Beijing... by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    ... instead of "all roads lead to Rome."

    In addition to the obvious strategic implications of China building these rail lines to link together its "virtual" Eurasian empire (by virtual I mean some of the governments, the "stans" are so corrupt or incompetent that the Chinese are soon going to be their puppetmasters. Just look at what's going on in Afghanistan, we fight and die they profit.), I wonder what other conditions the Chinese will put to the countries who will be connected.

    For example, will India be allowed to be a part of it? Talk about cutting out the competition!

    I don't know how far ahead the Chinese planning horizon is but if they *think* they have a lock down on all effective dissent for the foreseeable future they might be thinking many decades (centuries) ahead. Sounds grandiose but some companies like Toyota have 100 year plans (though I bet they didn't see these brake problems coming).

  83. Simpsons did it by sergei83 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else remembers the Simpsons' monorail?

  84. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by Cyberax · · Score: 3, 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.

  85. Antropic principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rich work on getting more power, but they never do anything with that power, except using it to get more.

    Power is security. Except against those with more power. Thus, you always need more power, to extend your security. Even if you have reached global dominance, there is always someone aspiring to topple you (to improve own security, of course). If accumulated power was used actively instead of used passively, as a deterrence, we would see either "evil genius" or "Caligula" or "third Reich" scenarios unfolding in reality and the world would swiftly end in a flash! Since it is not happening (at the moment), we can conclude that all this power accumulation has been in fact defensive (or none reached the level of readiness for their doomsday plan yet).

  86. Re:Ka-boom! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

    Michael, this is Mohammed. According to the local girls, Mohammed is a very attractive young man indeed.

    Mohammed, this is Michael. He's a little taste of those 72 virgins you've been promised.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  87. Good for them and for us... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    See, when I hear about these types of projects, i think that they can't be all that bad, I mean they offer a lower cost efficient way of transport and offer to pay half of it with labor, while the other countries offer the mats. for it. I wonder if there is a hidden agencda, but I can't see it...the pros far out way the cons here.

  88. Re:High Speed Rail and Freight are Mutually Exclus by red+crab · · Score: 2, Informative

    My brother works in Indian Railways as a Permanent Way Engineer. He says that his job of track(railroad) maintenance becomes really tough if goods (freight) trains share the same line along with passenger trains. Goods train wagons when loaded are a lot more heavier than passenger wagons causing frequent wear and tear of tracks. They are planning to separate freight lines from passenger lines in the coming years, for faster transit as well as easier maintenance.

  89. Re:Ka-boom! by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

    Number of troops stopped being an effective metric of military power about 100 years ago. In infantry combat, training and leadership counts for much more (see the Israelis and US ground forces in every conflict since WWII). The Russians used to say "quantity has a quality all its own", but they were kidding themselves.

    If you then consider the enormous advantages in armor, naval, and air power that a country like the USA, Russia, UK, etc. would have over China in a conflict, and China is very much a paper tiger.

    Even the Chinese know this. The massive size of the Chinese military serves political purposes. First, it creates a large number of people loyal to the government because that's where their bread is buttered. And it also provides them with the means to police/coerce/control 1.X billion people.

  90. Re:High speed rail is for poor people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever been to the city center of sufficiently large cities in the USA? There is a reason why people want private autos...

  91. Zero Costs? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    When has capitalism worked so efficiently that it produced so much that what it produced cost nothing? Prices don't fall to zero in any system because doing anything requires energy, which necessitates some positive cost.

    Money is only the common denominator of people's values at any point in time.

    It is the perception of relative worth that gives money its intrinsic value. Consequently, any method of exchange would do just fine so long as it is relatively easy to convince people that it has relative intrinsic value. A exchange of a bushel of potatoes for a bushel of wheat could just as easily be handled via a barter or via altering magnetic states within a computer, aka electronic money transfer. Its only a question of an equilibration and momentary synchronization of the perceptions between the buyer and the seller. Free gifts and services are only momentarily free as they can exist only temporarily under the expectation of some form of benefit in return at some future date.

    1. Re:Zero Costs? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      When has capitalism worked so efficiently that it produced so much that what it produced cost nothing? Prices don't fall to zero in any system because doing anything requires energy, which necessitates some positive cost.

      The value falls to zero. The cost doesn't. i.e. You built it but can't sell it because nobody wants it.

      In fact because most money is based on debt. The loan required to make the product which could satisfy the demand is (usually) never made in the first place. The loan requires a profit. If demand has been satisfied, the value is zero and there can't be any profit.

      e.g. everlasting light bulbs. Once they've all been made, demand has been satisfied. The value of one too many lightbulbs is zero. Nobody would give the loan which allows you to make that lightbulb because they'll never see a return on their loan.

      It is the perception of relative worth that gives money its intrinsic value.

      There's no such thing as intrinsic value, only relative value. But you're on the right track. Money itself has some desirable qualities; You can spend it anywhere you want, it doesn't degrade or rot so you can choose when to spend it, or not. Opportunity is a key quality. The desire to have money or the desire to have the goods depends whether you spend the money and buy the goods. If you make money less desirable, it'll be spent faster (Which is why most economists recommend mild inflation). Gesell described a more explicit system of demurrage. A monthly 1% penalty for holding money. Penalising the holding of money separates it's store of value quality from it's medium of exchange quality. It becomes purely a medium of exchange, people pass it on and use other things to store value.

      --
      Deleted
  92. Railcards by xyph0r · · Score: 1

    Will this be covered by our railcards?

    --
    SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
  93. Chinese Teabaggers? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the Chinese are funding part of the Tea Bag party to insure that America can't improve its technological infrastructure anytime soon.

    Now that one thinks of it, New Corporation, which through the Chinese wife of its owner has extensive business ties in China does carry much of the water for both the Chinese and the Teabaggers in opposing efforts by the US government to make progress on nearly any front at all.

    It is curious that Murdochian Gold Worship is the one religion the Chinese seem to tolerate these days.

  94. You thought democracy would catch hold in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big business has seen what works, and it ain't democracy.

    You better start the fight now because you sure ain't gonna be able to start it later. Democracy is draining away and the Chinese style corporate state will be on your doorstep sooner than you know it. It's being built right now all around you.

  95. helped make Russia #2 economic power by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The Russian trans-Asian railroad connected the people and capital of the west with the raw material of the East. China's project would be an update of this. It would be nice to shorten a trip of over a week to a couple days.

    1. Re:helped make Russia #2 economic power by Max_W · · Score: 1

      It should not be only Trans-Siberian. Imagine a line between, say, Moscow and Tehran, 4 hours only. Or Saint-Petersburg and Tel-Aviv, 5 hours of comfortable speed train.

      All present day terrorist of the region (unemployed hopeless people) could be well employed in building this railway network. It should be built correct from the beginning, as a direct line, not a serpantine. It means building tunnels, bridges, etc. It would be quite a job.

  96. Bering strait by Max_W · · Score: 1

    I would also recommend the line to the USA & Canada via Russia and then via Bering strait. This strait is only 85 km wide.

    It is high time.

    It can be build for a fraction of the money which is spent each year to fight the mountain tribes in Eurasia. Besides these tribesmen could be hired to build this railroad instead.

    This project would catch the imagination of the people worldwide. This is what I call leadership and global vision.

  97. Re:Ka-boom! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    But the nations that we would think of using terrorism against a rail line don't have modern forces, either. If the Taliban pissed off China, the Chinese could send in millions of troops, with more in reserve. The Chinese could actually fight the Taliban more than a smaller technologically "superior" army.

    As for nations with modern forces, they'd be MAD to attack China.

    The Russians used to say "quantity has a quality all its own", but they were kidding themselves.

    Tell that to the German dead at Stalingrad.

  98. Re:High speed rail is for poor people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously don't have a car. Ever experienced traffic jam? Travelling by public transport is significantly faster and more convenient than travelling by private car in urban areas, especially during rush hour.

  99. "Existing infrastructure in the EU"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In comparison to Japan and China, there's nothing you could call high speed trains over here. And (at least in Germany) the existing railway lines are being criminally neglected, so I wouldn't even want real high speed unless there's much more state oversight. Real high speed under current management would probably result in a super-Eschede.

  100. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWlgbAc3bbM

  101. Re:Ka-boom! by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

    Iraq had the world's fourth largest standing Army in 1990 at the start of Gulf War I. Modern coalition forces measuring perhaps 1/3 their destroyed the Iraqis in 100 hours of ground war, at a cost of some 150 coalition casualties. And on a per-unit basis, the Iraqis of 1990 were likely better and more modernly equipped than the average PLA unit of today.

    As for the Russians in Stalingrad, winter weather and logistical ineptitute is what really stopped zee Germans. The Wheremacht was able to penetrate Russia all the way to Stalingrad before being cut off and overwhelmed, despite numerical inferiority in men (but not materiel). Too far, too fast. And at least according to Wikipedia, the number of troops at the time of the Russian counter-offensive was roughly equal (~1M apiece). So it wasn't quantity that made the Russians win, it was stubborn bravery, plenitful ammunition, and the ability to fight in the Russian winter.

  102. Communist talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    You mean they don't have a communist regime trying to distribute the wealth. The only people who are crying foul about distribution are the poor and left-leaning politicians wanting their votes. They hope to improve the situation of the poor by bringing down others who are better off. I could understand their attacks if they were only aimed at billionaires, but they target anyone who is better off, including the middle class. Like the poor are entitled to the money that the better-offs worked for. It makes no sense.

  103. Re:China to Europe by OldOOCoboler · · Score: 1

    How many people use a rail line from one terminus to the other? I've taken Amtrak hundreds of times, but the absolute longest journey was D.C. to New Haven in a snowstorm when the airports were closed. The rest were Boston to New Haven, New Haven to Philly, etc. This project puts China at the center of a network and makes other points on the network both more important and more dependent on China.

  104. Rail is rarely faster by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    How long does it take to get to the station?
    How long does it take waiting for your train?
    How long does it take waiting for connections?
    How long does it take to get from the station to your destination?
    How often does the train stop? How long does it spend at 0mph? What does that do to the average speed?

    In France and Germany, as well as the UK, rail travel represents a tiny proportion of passenger miles travelled every year. The reality is that in well over 90% of journeys, the train performs very poorly indeed. Which explains the usage statistics with respect to cars.
     

    --
    Deleted
  105. Re:Ka-boom! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    As I tried to say, China could destroy any country with infrastructure (via nukes) or any country without (millions of pairs of boots on the ground).

    As for WWII Soviet Union, the Soviets lost 600,000 men in the first weeks of Barbarossa. Also, the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad because of the narrowness of their advance (OK, and the weather). Even the T-34/85's could stand up to a lot of the panzers, and the Soviets augmented this by mass producing a few tank models (loyal to their Marxist leanings, while the Germans had a wide variety of models of which they produced fewer total tanks.

  106. Re:High speed rail is for poor people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virtually all local transportation problems, as well as the issues of urban centralization, are a result of government force. The government's central planning (urban planning, zoning, location of government services, etc) is the reason for the extremes of urban density, especially after the invention of the Internet.

    Inefficient, improperly incentivized, and inherently corrupt government monopoly is the reason why we don't have underground and elevated private toll highways where you can drive (or be driven) at 200 MPH! Government-subsidized cheap oil (paid for with trillion-dollar oil wars at tax victim expense) and regulation red tape is the reason why we don't have cheap electric power, cheap electric cars, and cheap electric helicopters / heli-buses for the middle class! Etc, etc, etc.

    (Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)

  107. Well, the invasion forces... by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    Have to get there *somehow*. The Chinese continue to fight the Thousand Year War while the rest of us cant see beyond this afternoon's TV show. Bow to your Chinese masters!