Comments on: Meet The Train Makers, Part 6: China

By: Pierre Bonardi

Pierre Bonardi — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:44:54 +0000

Curiously enough, Alstom Transport’s rigid attitude is not shared by its larger power branch which has 40% of its market in China. Alstom Power’s CEO declared he does not see anything wrong in transferring its newest technology to its Chinese partners.

By: Andrew in Ezo

Andrew in Ezo — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:39:41 +0000

@greg
The CRH-2, though an older design, is faster that you make it to be. According to Wikipedia, they have a maximum (stated) operating speed of 250km/h. On a test in 2008, it reached a speed of 370km/h. Trainsets from most makers are quite capable of running at speeds higher than their stated specifications, however it is restrictions in rail and catenary wear, signaling and environmental impact (noise) that keeps them in the 300km/h range. Of course, if China Railways can address these concerns in an innovative and effective manner, it would be quite praiseworthy.

By: greg

greg — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:20:21 +0000

@Andrew in Ezo,

As I said in the post above, China would still need to develop the 350-380 km/h class train sets technologies on its own even though it received some technologies transfers.

But the real attraction of Chinese Ministry of Railway is not the train sets. It is China’s extensive experience in integration of various subsystems and building the tracks at 350 km/h level that are most valuable. Not many countries have such extensive experiences. In the GE-Chinese Ministry of Railway agreement, GE is specifically interested in the 350 km/h high-speed rail technologies and experiences.

By: greg

greg — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:12:27 +0000

Kawasaki, Siemens and Bombardier will get billions of dollars orders respectively from China in the years ahead in exchange for transferring some of their technologies (200 km/h level, not their cutting-edge) and forming the joint ventures with China. Where else can they find such a big market?

In the case of Bombardier, they’re developing the 380 km/h class train-sets for the Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Rail to be delivered in 2011 in their joint venture in China. They’re in the China market for the long haul.

The CRH-2 based on Kawasaki 200 km/h class train-set is not really suitable for China’s 350 km/h high-speed rail. The Chinese are upgrading technologies.

The CRH-3 based on Siemens design is slightly better; it’s for 300 km/h class. Still, the Chinese will need to upgrade it to the 380 km/h level.

Alstom complained loudly and did not want to play along. They’re shut out of China high-speed rail market. But I think they still sell metro systems there.

Korea’s high-speed rail market is nowhere to be compared to China’s. Alstom learned the wrong lesson there. When China starts to sell in international market, they will still compete with Alstom. The difference? Alstom is not selling in China, the world’s largest high-speed rail market where other companies are.

By: Andrew in Ezo

Andrew in Ezo — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:07:19 +0000

I find it interesting that GE of the United States recently inked a deal to get HSR technology from the Chinese (detailed in this blog). No doubt that Chinese knowhow owes much to the technology “transfers” of Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, and Kawasaki Heavy, all who have supplied China Railways. So the U.S.A. may get European and Japanese HSR technology, but at “Wal Mart” prices…

By: paul

paul — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:53:31 +0000

This has nothing to do with the sale of 12 sets and everything to do with the transfer of the western power axis to the east, the transfer of technologies and know how is to move manufacturing and the rest ot the east, lower the west standard and raise the east, produce a lower level playing field, harmonise the world power structures, neo socialism

By: Pierre Bonardi

Pierre Bonardi — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:57:16 +0000

Alstom seriously burnt their fingers in Korea and it still aches.
To judge the amount of technlogy transferred, here is a passage from Alstom’s archives:
“[it] covered rolling stock, catenary and traffic control system manufacturing,
including the transfer of documents, technical training and support of Korean
engineers. In France, training covered detail drawing, process designing, alignment of
manufacturing facilities, key parts manufacturing and testing, and quality
control. The technology transfer also included technical support from French
engineers to Korean companies (plant planning, production facility establishment,
welding, manufacturing, assembly and tests).”
1000 French engineers were sent to Korea while 1200 Korean engineers were trained in France and given free access to all of Alstom’s plants in Europe.
Alstom gave away two decades of research for the sale of just 12 trainsets.
It must be said that Alstom was encouraged to accept these conditions by the French industry minister who viewed Korea as a showcase for French technology. Very naive
as Koreans never mention French technology.
Of course, transferred technology can’t legally be used in exports but no international body has power to have this clause implemented. So, it is left to the ethical judgment of the buyer. This may work in Europe, but not elsewhere.
Turkey had no qualms about it and chose Rotem’s cheaper “TGV” rather than Alstom’s.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:26:54 +0000

Are you going to write an article about ROTEM?