Indians mocking these trains will never understand why they are, in a sense, the most outstanding trains in China and possibly the rest of the world.
Chinese Rail Transport Appreciation & News
- Thread starter cookiez
- Start date
China showcasing its new 600 km/h maglev train. not sure when this is actually going into service and where.
China Opens New Freight Route Linking Yunnan to Indian Ocean
Compared with the traditional maritime route through China's Beibu Gulf ports and the Strait of Malacca, the new logistics corridor shortens the transportation distance by nearly one-third, reduces transportation time by half, and improves transportation efficiency by more than 50 percent.
The new logistics corridor provides a new option for Chinese goods to reach the Indian Ocean and helps China strengthen economic cooperation with countries along the corridor, such as Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand, Liu Jinxin, director of the Kunming Institute of International Logistics for South and Southeast Asia, told Yicai.
Compared with the traditional maritime route through China's Beibu Gulf ports and the Strait of Malacca, the new logistics corridor shortens the transportation distance by nearly one-third, reduces transportation time by half, and improves transportation efficiency by more than 50 percent.
The new logistics corridor provides a new option for Chinese goods to reach the Indian Ocean and helps China strengthen economic cooperation with countries along the corridor, such as Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand, Liu Jinxin, director of the Kunming Institute of International Logistics for South and Southeast Asia, told Yicai.
Despite the fact that a new Chengdu-Kunming line has been complete last year, these poverty-alleviation trains still traverse the old Chengkun Railway (the one built on the bones of 2,000 + PLA soldiers) with the sole purpose of serving as school buses and carriers of fresh produce. These poverty alleviation trains also run on the old Baoji-Chengdu railway (China's first electrified railway).
Sorry, it's a bit too long for me to listen to all of it, but I remember looking into the topic a little bit a few years back, at the time there was a lot of buzz about how uneconomic the HSR was.
There were some obvious counterpoints to that like COVID skewing the numbers and Chinas economic growth creating more revenue down the line.
But perhaps "less obvious" (but not really) was the question of: Who carries the cost?
From what I could find China State Railway Group essentially paid for building the rail and the costs would thus appear on their (or their subsidiaries) balance sheet. Which is very different from how railways are paid for in the EU, were the state often paid for construction and pays for most of the maintenance.
So at the end of the day, the red numbers become "hidden" in the EU, as it's covered by the state to whatever extent is needed and any green numbers have to be seen in that context.
Is this anything you discussed?
Last edited:
There is a more fundamental argument here, before you even have to go to economic specifics.
The capitalist critique on Chinese HSR is pretty trite as well as expected. China is building bridges and trains to nowhere, huge projects that run at horrific efficiency and will never return the investment.
This is a pretty common misunderstanding on how things work or should work in a society. In the capitalist West, these projects are made for profit. The companies that build them are supposed to get their money back, and then keep exploiting them until the heat death of the universe. The state is there to serve them and their investors, not the people that those projects are supposed to help.
In an organized society that is trying to reach socialism, these projects are made to serve the common good. Direct and indirect economic benefits of infrastructure and mass transit are well known, studied and welcome. Projects are indeed designed in a way to be as efficient and cost-effective to society as possible, and there is competition, innovation and rapid advancement in all aspects. BUT, in the end all economic arguments are simply secondary to the obvious benefit those projects have on local communities and the country as a whole.
One builds for capital, the other for the people.
The capitalist critique on Chinese HSR is pretty trite as well as expected. China is building bridges and trains to nowhere, huge projects that run at horrific efficiency and will never return the investment.
This is a pretty common misunderstanding on how things work or should work in a society. In the capitalist West, these projects are made for profit. The companies that build them are supposed to get their money back, and then keep exploiting them until the heat death of the universe. The state is there to serve them and their investors, not the people that those projects are supposed to help.
In an organized society that is trying to reach socialism, these projects are made to serve the common good. Direct and indirect economic benefits of infrastructure and mass transit are well known, studied and welcome. Projects are indeed designed in a way to be as efficient and cost-effective to society as possible, and there is competition, innovation and rapid advancement in all aspects. BUT, in the end all economic arguments are simply secondary to the obvious benefit those projects have on local communities and the country as a whole.
One builds for capital, the other for the people.
Roads are universally understood as necessary infrastructure not primarily meant to generate profit.
Railways are understood the same in much of the World, but one big exception is the US, were it's only considered worthwhile were it can cover its own costs; which is essentially never for public transporation when competing against government funded highways.
When you have a China-bashing video like this, it's obvious that the US dogma is selectively applied to China and it's simply implied that other rail-heavy areas - like the EU - are having profitable railways, despite governments footing the bill.