News Stories

[MrTerrorist]

ANC's Julius Malema guilty of South Africa hate speech

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Sister Princess

I don't get it.

For people like Watashiya Kaoru, it may be better if they remain quiet.

I even see about 5 or 6 people who participate Seiki no Quaser? WTF?

they're right to be concerned & alarmed cause mainstream shounen titles such as ToLoveRu will be illegal.
if that bill is passed then the multibillion dollar Japan Ink (anime/manga etc etc) will be damaged beyond recognition.

[Urzu 7]

What will that bill do to affect unofficial material, like doujins and pics on Pixiv and such?

[Sister Princess]

Originally Posted by mg1942

they're right to be concerned & alarmed cause mainstream shounen titles such as ToLoveRu will be illegal.
if that bill is passed then the multibillion dollar Japan Ink (anime/manga etc etc) will be damaged beyond recognition.

I wonder if having "these guys" in it will create an opposite effect.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by mg1942

they're right to be concerned & alarmed cause mainstream shounen titles such as ToLoveRu will be illegal.
if that bill is passed then the multibillion dollar Japan Ink (anime/manga etc etc) will be damaged beyond recognition.

Funny you mention ToLoveRu.
As you may have noticed, there's not a single current Jump manga artist on that list.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aohige

Funny you mention ToLoveRu.

Mikan the brocon and Yami who hates slimy rubbing things. Who else?

As you may have noticed, there's not a single current Jump manga artist on that list.

They probably want to stay out of trouble.

And....

China Accounting Shift Narrows Deficit

BEIJING—China's finance ministry changed the accounting of some government spending in a way that enabled Beijing to announce a deficit below the symbolic level of 3% of gross domestic product for 2010, an examination of budget documents shows.

The change in accounting, disclosed briefly in a ministry report, highlights the government's desire to show strong public finances at a time when global markets are increasingly jittery about deficits and debts, amid a crisis precipitated by Greece's failure to stick to the euro zone's 3% limit.

The accounting change simply shifts spending from one year to another, and doesn't mean the overall trend of government finances is worse than reported. Still, it raises questions about transparency at a time when Beijing, emboldened by China's strong economic performance through the worst of the global recession, has been more critical of how other countries manage their economies.

In a news conference Sunday, Premier Wen Jiabao said he wanted reassurance from the U.S. that it would meet obligations to buyers of its debt. Mr. Wen also blamed the U.S. for depreciating its currency and pressing China to make its currency rise.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, in a letter to the Obama administration, called for a broad effort to get Beijing to change its currency policy, including tariffs on Chinese imports if Beijing doesn't budge.

China's finances, according to official measures, remain healthier that those of the U.S. and many European nations, though Chinese officials are increasingly concerned about the hidden liabilities of local governments. China's finance ministry has pledged to keep annual budget deficits narrower than 3%, the same threshold countries in the euro zone are supposed to observe.

In a report to China's legislature this month, the ministry estimated the total budget deficit for 2010 at 2.8% of GDP, "basically the same as last year." A strict cash accounting of government expenditures, however, would widen the 2010 deficit to 3.5% of forecast GDP, and shrink the 2009 deficit to 2.2% of GDP, according to calculations by The Wall Street Journal that were verified by three economists.

Greece and other European countries have over the years used accounting maneuvers to meet their own 3% targets. In the run-up to the creation of the euro, France, Spain and Portugal made one-off changes to their budgets that allowed them to keep deficits below the 3% level for 1997. Subsequent revisions showed that the actual deficits for that year were above 3% of GDP for all three countries. Europe is now struggling with a crisis precipitated by Greece's failure to stick to that target.

It isn't clear why China's finance ministry is so attached to the 3% target. China has no obligation to keep its deficits below that level, and many foreign economists have urged the government to run bigger deficits. China also doesn't face pressure from global financial markets to run tight government finances, as its enormous pool of domestic savings means it has little need to borrow from abroad.

Beijing has frequently faced questions from investors and its own public over whether official data accurately represent the state of the world's fastest-growing major economy.

In a 2008 report by the International Budget Partnership on transparency in government finances, China scored 14 out of 100 points. India scored 60, and the U.S. scored 82. China provides "scant information" about its public finances, which "makes it very difficult for citizens to hold the government accountable for its management of the public's money," the group said.

The difference in the 2010 deficit accounting hinges on the treatment of 260.82 billion yuan ($38.16 billion) in local government spending that was "carried over" from 2009. According to the ministry's report, this money was allocated for projects in 2009 but wasn't spent. Though it will be spent in 2010, it is being counted in the 2009 budget.

In a written response to questions from the Journal, China's Ministry of Finance confirmed that the "carried over" money isn't included in its budget for spending in 2010.

It isn't uncommon to account for spending in the time period when the commitment to pay the money is made, as is the practice under the accrual accounting used by many businesses. But most governments, including China's, have historically practiced cash accounting, which counts revenue and spending only when the money changes hands.

Under those principles, to count all of the cash the government will actually spend in 2010 requires adding the "carried over" funds to the 8.453 trillion yuan in formal budgeted spending. That would increase the budgeted 1.05 trillion yuan deficit for 2010 by 260.82 billion yuan, pushing it to 3.5% of expected GDP from 2.8%.

China's budget deficit for 2010 could turn out to be lower, since it is based on the finance ministry's forecast of 8% in revenue growth, which is widely seen as very conservative. The ministry also budgeted for 8% revenue growth last year, and achieved an 11.7% gain.

Wtf? If China, as the largest world economy, imitates Enron, we are in for another global recession in 2-3 years time!

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The question is, whether they will adapt it nation-wide or just for this project. I believe if this project is ever meant to be successful the chinese have to pay it basically themselves (I will explain this later).

Well, that's basically what they are planning to do, asking for natural resources access in exchange (similar to their economic policy in Africa):

China has already agreed to finance a rail link into Myanmar in exchange for the rights to that country’s lithium reserves. Russia and China have announced plans to build a new trans-Siberian link. Iran, Pakistan, and India are each negotiating with China to build domestic rail lines that would link into the overall transcontinental system.

(link)

There are no real benefits to changing their gauge. Goods are transfered from one freight train to another at the border. If we consider customs and similar bureaucracy here, the goods would have to be screened there anyway. When the goods switch their means of transportation in the process, it is not so much longer a delay in cargo transportation than without the different gauges.
Besides their whole stock of trains (even the new EMU Sapsan) is based on the wider gauge. They do not even have a unified energy grid for electric trains on national level (south and north use completely different currents and imo they're even different in that one uses AC while the other uses DC).
If ever, the chinese have to create an insular solution within Russia. That means their system remains incompatible with the russian railway.

They actually have plenty good reasons to unify gauge, as the virtually nil transferring delay it would allow are precisely one of the main advantage of railway travel over other means of shipping.
Transferring cargo from wagon to wagon would be pretty much of a hassle, especially for bulk raw material, and changing boggies is time consuming. There is still the variable gauge option, but I don't know if it's applicable to all kind of wagons.
A unified energy grid is already less an issue, as it takes way less time to change a locomotive than to transfer a whole train cargo.

It seems they first want to create a new route trough Central Asia (work along with Kazakhstan actually started a few years ago), I think they see it as pretty vital to disenclave the whole Central Asia as well as their own Western Provinces.

Also, concerning gauge harmonization, bear in mind that all that matters is political will, as rolling material is much less of an issue (especially since many of those countries have obsolete fleets to be replaced), and can be managed in the mid to long-term. Modernising and adapting tracks for higher speeds involve at least replacing them, so changing the gauge in the same time is hardly a problem.

But sea freighting and air frighting will be the actual competitors since, in each of their domains they are the best solutions. For sea freighting it is transportation of very large amounts of goods at low costs but the disadvantage of the delivery time span.
For air freighting it is the fastest way to transport goods, but at high costs and limited capacity (space/weight).
The mix of both solutions works well at the moment. The method to use trains will only get a certain market share, since it is a solution sitting somewhere in between of the other two. So, it is not exactly the optimal solution, it is just a different approach, that can close a gap of transportation options.

Actually sea freighting is not really a competitor, as far as access to Central Asia resources and markets are concerned, so here train is the only option for freight. Also, the issue of piracy can be seen as a strong incentive to bypass those dangerous trade routes.

And remember that they aim for speed high enough to compete with air travel. A London-Beijing station to station 48h trip sure is an ambitious goal, but if fulfilled would be more than competitive with air (since those are hampered by high costs, and considerable time spent in airports, as well as transfer to airports), with a fraction of the cost and much larger capacity.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Wtf? If China, as the largest world economy

Excuse me. Just hold the phone a minute. By what definition are we using to mark China as "the worlds largest economy"?




The United States is still over three times the size of the Chinese economy. And with the European Union becoming more economically unified, eventually you'll have to start treating them more like a single economic bloc. Even Japan with but a tiny fraction of China's population still had a greater GDP, It seems rather oblivious to characterize China as the largest economy in the world.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Well, that's basically what they are planning to do, asking for natural resources access in exchange (similar to their economic policy in Africa):

(link)

If you had some experiences with arabian or certain asian buisinesses you would know that they can talk of big projects and stuff. They can even tell you, they are going to definitly do it... in the end only when you have the contract signed, and the thing built you can be sure they really meant it.

That China wants access to natural resources is logical. But the cost to get them... well... lets see.

Originally Posted by JMvS

They actually have plenty good reasons to unify gauge, as the virtually nil transferring delay it would allow are precisely one of the main advantage of railway travel over other means of shipping.

Now if that was really so easy, I wonder why the Kreml does not see that benefit you are advertising here (or rather see no benefit in comparison to the initial extra cost).

Originally Posted by JMvS

Transferring cargo from wagon to wagon would be pretty much of a hassle, especially for bulk raw material,

Why? You just need the unloading wagon on a higher level than the to be loaded wagon, gravity basically does the work for you. And switching cargo from one wagon to another can be done very fast using a bridge crane if you deal with standard freight containers.

Originally Posted by JMvS

and changing boggies is time consuming.

And quite difficult, doing it wrong ruins the center pivot on the center plate, which makes the bogie useless.

Originally Posted by JMvS

There is still the variable gauge option, but I don't know if it's applicable to all kind of wagons.

Yes it is for most freight wagons. But also more expensive to maintain.

Originally Posted by JMvS

A unified energy grid is already less an issue, as it takes way less time to change a locomotive than to transfer a whole train cargo.

Or use electric locomotives that can use different currents. Still, on the long run it causes much extra costs.
What I basically wanted to emphasize is... the RZhD does not even see the need to unify the electric grid, which would be far easier then unifying the gauge.

Originally Posted by JMvS

It seems they first want to create a new route trough Central Asia (work along with Kazakhstan actually started a few years ago), I think they see it as pretty vital to disenclave the whole Central Asia as well as their own Western Provinces.

Now, I wouldn't start with HSR then (which is what I am talking about).

Originally Posted by JMvS

Also, concerning gauge harmonization, bear in mind that all that matters is political will, as rolling material is much less of an issue (especially since many of those countries have obsolete fleets to be replaced), and can be managed in the mid to long-term. Modernising and adapting tracks for higher speeds involve at least replacing them, so changing the gauge in the same time is hardly a problem.

Maybe in switzerland but not in Russia. I cannot estimate it, but I think to rebuild the tracks of the trans-siberian railway would be a major hurdle by itself. And there is much more track in Russia.

Originally Posted by JMvS

Actually sea freighting is not really a competitor, as far as access to Central Asia resources and markets are concerned, so here train is the only option for freight. Also, the issue of piracy can be seen as a strong incentive to bypass those dangerous trade routes.

Which begs the question of what you want to access there. And if it is worth it to be accessed by rail. For oil and gas pipelines will do much better.
Piracy is pretty much a non-issue in that equation, its just hyped up to fill the news with something spectecular.

Originally Posted by JMvS

And remember that they aim for speed high enough to compete with air travel. A London-Beijing station to station 48h trip sure is an ambitious goal, but if fulfilled would be more than competitive with air (since those are hampered by high costs, and considerable time spent in airports, as well as transfer to airports), with a fraction of the cost and much larger capacity.

Well, explain to me please... why the really fast HSR is only available in countries where the railway network is state owned, yet most airlines are private businesses. Maybe thats because HSR with all its maintenance is not exactly as cheap as it seems.
From a ecological point of view it would make a lot of sense however. Which is why I would like to see this project come true. But I will stay realistic... I wait and see... there are many odds against it.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Excuse me. Just hold the phone a minute. By what definition are we using to mark China as "the worlds largest economy"?




The United States is still over three times the size of the Chinese economy. And with the European Union becoming more economically unified, eventually you'll have to start treating them more like a single economic bloc. Even Japan with but a tiny fraction of China's population still had a greater GDP, It seems rather oblivious to characterize China as the largest economy in the world.

I mean production economy. China has the world's largest production capability.

[roseycheeks]

http://www.unitethemarbles.org/petition/?page_id=10

There is a petition going around for England to give back Greece's marbles!

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I mean production economy. China has the world's largest production capability.

What are we measuring production capability by? Cause crunching the #'s in the CIA world factbook, the industrial GDP seems to go like this...

European Union:$4.14659 trillion

United States:$3.1394 trillion

China:$2.312388 trillion

China is definitely a major industrial heavy weight, but they can't just yet go about claiming to be the most economically powerful country in the world based on their industrial power. They still got a bit of growing to do that.

The question is will China be able to keep growing at it's current rate, despite all the problems churning in the dragons belly. Having grown up through both the dot bomb AND the current housing crisis on wall street, I'm very skeptical of any projection that forecasts infinite growth.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Jinto

If you had some experiences with arabian or certain asian buisinesses you would know that they can talk of big projects and stuff. They can even tell you, they are going to definitly do it... in the end only when you have the contract signed, and the thing built you can be sure they really meant it.

That China wants access to natural resources is logical. But the cost to get them... well... lets see.

Point is that the Chinese do have a record in this kind of development schemes, plus they do have both the industrial basis and financial means to do it on such a scale.

Now if that was really so easy, I wonder why the Kreml does not see that benefit you are advertising here (or rather see no benefit in comparison to the initial extra cost).

Because for a long time Russia had little benefits in doing so: their hydrocarbon export needed only pipeline, and they had large concerns about opening their borders to neighboring countries.
Plus their railways with the Transsiberian qualified as an object of national pride, and anyway there weren't modernization credits available until relatively recently.
And let's not forget that their railway system is a part of their defense system as well.

Why? You just need the unloading wagon on a higher level than the to be loaded wagon, gravity basically does the work for you. And switching cargo from one wagon to another can be done very fast using a bridge crane if you deal with standard freight containers.

That's what they have been doing with Kazakhstan for a while, and they decided to modernize and convert the lines to standard gauge.

Consider that the facilities you talk about are far from negligible (in the aforementioned article, they even had to displace it due to lack of space). That amount to build a rather large commercial harbor facility at each border, with subsequent construction and operating costs, as well as a loss of time.
Now, as both parties were eager to trade and cooperate, and building new tracks and modernizing old ones was necessary, I suppose it was better to do it in standard gauge and get rid of the land harbor.

Also, connection from Kazakhstan to Iran via Turkmenistan is underway (see related links), which, as well as Turkey, are modernizing their railways for high speed on interconnected lines, the future Bosphorus Tunnel connecting them further to the European rail network.

And quite difficult, doing it wrong ruins the center pivot on the center plate, which makes the bogie useless.

Not that much, several countries are using bogie exchange technology. China is notably using it with Russia and Mongolia. So I guess they have quite an experience on the matter: it requires dedicated facilities, and it takes time.

Yes it is for most freight wagons. But also more expensive to maintain.

Variable gauge technology is also used by quite a number of countries. IIRC, a problem with it is that some of the transcontinental lines would have up to 3 different gauges, so I suppose harmonization is a better solution.

Or use electric locomotives that can use different currents. Still, on the long run it causes much extra costs.
What I basically wanted to emphasize is... the RZhD does not even see the need to unify the electric grid, which would be far easier then unifying the gauge.

Last time I checked, all their new lines use similar electric systems. Their priority is to develop high capacity lines, around and between large urban centers, as well as on international trade routes.
Less profitable tributary regional lines don't have such needs: look at the different standards in Japan, or even the modern diesel French TER.

Now, I wouldn't start with HSR then (which is what I am talking about).

They are creating new lines anyway, as well as modernizing derelict ones, so I guess they all decided it was better to do it using modern technology (using Europe as an example).

Maybe in switzerland but not in Russia. I cannot estimate it, but I think to rebuild the tracks of the trans-siberian railway would be a major hurdle by itself. And there is much more track in Russia.

All tracks have to be maintained regularly, so if the need to modernize a line arise, it's mostly a matter of political and commercial will (versus maintainance neglect).
And actually, modernizing the Trans-Siberian would more easy if not cheaper than our costly and complex AlpTransit base tunnels (German Wiki page is more complete).

Which begs the question of what you want to access there. And if it is worth it to be accessed by rail. For oil and gas pipelines will do much better.
Piracy is pretty much a non-issue in that equation, its just hyped up to fill the news with something spectecular.

Remember that it is a multilateral program, with large countries such a Turkey, Iran and Kazakhstan involved, all desiring efficient connections with their neighbors for passenger lines as well as trade of raw and manufactured goods.

Well, explain to me please... why the really fast HSR is only available in countries where the railway network is state owned, yet most airlines are private businesses. Maybe thats because HSR with all its maintenance is not exactly as cheap as it seems.

Well, all transport infrastructures are expensive, be those railroads, roads, highways, airports, canals or harbors. Depending on circumstances those were prioritized differently, and each sector has very different ways of behaving in a market economy.
Notice that HSR passenger lines are presently the most profitable ones (even the the Amtrak Acela), and that in Europe, private companies are on their way of challenging former public monopolies.

From a ecological point of view it would make a lot of sense however. Which is why I would like to see this project come true. But I will stay realistic... I wait and see... there are many odds against it.

Gladly, it seems that the leaders of about a dozen countries (half of them being large ones) think and have decided it also makes sense economically.

[Jinto]

If you had some experiences with arabic or certain asian buisinesses you would know that they can talk of big projects and stuff. They can even tell you, they are going to definitly do it... in the end only when you have the contract signed, and the thing built you can be sure they really meant it.

Originally Posted by JMvS

Gladly, it seems that the leaders of about a dozen countries (half of them being large ones) think and have decided it also makes sense economically.

Lets see...

Originally Posted by JMvS

All tracks have to be maintained regularly, so if the need to modernize a line arise, it's mostly a matter of political and commercial will (versus maintainance neglect).
And actually, modernizing the Trans-Siberian would more easy if not cheaper than our 20+ Billions $ AlpTransit base tunnels.

You are confusing the replacement of certain parts of the track with replacing the whole track. Besides in continental asia climate differs more extreme (summer/winter), therefore it will cost much more money to build HSR there.

I am not going to argue with you about the other stuff. Since most of it is subjective in terms of such words as "such a scale", "little benefits", "large concerns", "relatively recently", "modernize and convert the lines to standard gauge" (which is not exactly HSR, and not exactly the vast railway network of Russia), "Not that much", "several countries" (imo which turns out to be very few), "I suppose", "all their new lines use" (thats how much in comparison to the whole network?), "multilateral program" (as if that was an actual advantage ), "all desiring efficient connections" (efficient doesn't have to mean HSR), "presently the most profitable ones" (not for the passenger - at least not in Germany), "are on their way" (lets see if they reach somewhere, somewhen)

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Wtf? If China, as the largest world economy, imitates Enron, we are in for another global recession in 2-3 years time!

While you're mistaken in China being the world's largest economy, if they do collapse it would be a disaster. The US economy is still struggling to recover and Europe isn't in great shape. Right now China is what's keeping the world's economy afloat. If they crash before the US and Europe recover enough to absorb the impact, we're not looking at another recession, we're looking at Great Depression 2.0.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

While you're mistaken in China being the world's largest economy, if they do collapse it would be a disaster. The US economy is still struggling to recover and Europe isn't in great shape. Right now China is what's keeping the world's economy afloat. If they crash before the US and Europe recover enough to absorb the impact, we're not looking at another recession, we're looking at Great Depression 2.0.

Make that Great Depression x 100, considering how globalization has pretty much set a trap for everyone around the world. People could only think of the good things it could bring when they created globalization.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Jinto

You are confusing the replacement of certain parts of the track with replacing the whole track. Besides in continental asia climate differs more extreme (summer/winter), therefore it will cost much more money to build HSR there.

Point is, a railway network must be maintained very regularly to stay efficient at it's (restricted if not obsolescent) designed capacity. So if a relatively large period of time is considered, replacing the whole thing can be reconsidered as delayed operation cost, rather than a whole new investment; and the longer maintenance as well as modernization has been neglected, the more the rise of a need to catch up makes it relevant.

High speed passenger and fast freight high load trains need very similar modernizations to be implemented on a century old network: electrification, welded rails, concrete sleepers.
Building or keeping jointed rails on timber sleepers without any plan for electrification, would be nothing but nonsense if you expect an intense traffic corresponding to modern economy trade flows.

Technology isn't that much of an issue, for modern rail tracks are present in the Alps and Pyrennée. And I believe the Chinese acquired quite some experience on the Lhasa line; while the latter is not high speed, due to the limitations of high altitude, sinuous tracks, and it's function being only to connect a marginal dead-end population basin with the rest of China), it still is an extensive modern track built on one of the most harsh environment existing on Earth.
Now compare it with a line laid on mostly flat central Asian steppes, connecting on both ends the two largest economic and population basins in the World. With all the other large population basins with blooming economies on the way (South East Asian Peninsula, India, Pakistan), do you seriously think it will not see (and thus require) high traffic?

I am not going to argue with you about the other stuff. Since most of it is subjective in terms of such words as "such a scale", "little benefits", "large concerns", "relatively recently", "modernize and convert the lines to standard gauge" (which is not exactly HSR, and not exactly the vast railway network of Russia), "Not that much", "several countries" (imo which turns out to be very few), "I suppose", "all their new lines use" (thats how much in comparison to the whole network?), "multilateral program" (as if that was an actual advantage ), "all desiring efficient connections" (efficient doesn't have to mean HSR), "presently the most profitable ones" (not for the passenger - at least not in Germany), "are on their way" (lets see if they reach somewhere, somewhen)

Actually, all the connecting lines on the Central Asia route have been underway for a while already:
-Trans-Kazakhstan, standard line work started in 2004
-with Turkmenistan,
-to Iran, which is modernizing it's network, with HSR being implemented on the corridor, conversely, it is also linking with the Gulf (Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), and Pakistan (the latter of which has agreed to convert to the Standard gauge, talking also with... China), and it is already linked with
-Turkey, which is already implementing HSR trough their whole territory, building of the Bosphorus Tunnel is also already underway, connecting with
-Continental Europe, where it can connect with Greece and the different Orient Express lines; along it HSR is being implemented in Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Slovenia, all the way to Italy, Austria and the rest of the network.

Those are already being built, the figure rising to more than a dozen countries if you add India, Burma, Vietnam and Malaysia.

Efficient nowadays does involve Fast and Intense traffic, as old existing lines are most if not all at over capacity levels, and the figure will rise as economies bloom in this part of the World, which is rich in natural resources and hordes of educated young peoples.

The need for capacity is such that in several areas, more than two lines of tracks are laid: new modern lines being built next to modernized old ones.

Also, note that in building a railway, the costs generally range in the following manner: Tunnels >> Bridges >> High Rise >> Ballast >> Electrification >> Rails. Hence the benefits of adapting existing lines, even century old ones, which with modifications and appropriate train technologies can accommodate speeds above 200 km/h.
Of course if you want to go above 300 km/h per hour, you'd better build new tracks, but guess what, that's already what they are doing.

The whole railway network has already been under construction for years; what China has made was essentially a commitment to raise the standard on the whole length of it, together with their connection with the South East Asian Peninsula and with projects for multiple corridors (India, Russia). Actually, they pretty much announced that they were taking in hand and upgrading the 50 years old Trans-Asian Railways program of the UN (see map for the whole network).

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Make that Great Depression x 100, considering how globalization has pretty much set a trap for everyone around the world. People could only think of the good things it could bring when they created globalization.

If you think about it, globalization probably occurred maybe two centuries too early. i mean most countries at the time hadn't even settled their current domestic issues, such as civil rights for african americans in America, but then again after wwII and the start of the cold war it was inevitable that globalization would occur, for better or for worse.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Make that Great Depression x 100, considering how globalization has pretty much set a trap for everyone around the world. People could only think of the good things it could bring when they created globalization.

If globalisation never came about then my country would still be a fishing village.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by JMvS

...
High speed passenger and fast freight high load trains need very similar modernizations to be implemented on a century old network: electrification, welded rails, concrete sleepers.

When I talk about HSR (and I assume that applies for that particular project too) I mean this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fe...FB%C3%B6gl.jpg

Which is a little more expensive and needed, because in contrast to middle european climate, the tracks in central asia have to compensate temperature differences of over 100°C (-40°C winter to 80+°C summer). At 60°C there is a force of 1500 kN (reference temperature would be 20°C). Since HSR relies very much on highly accurate track, it must be build like in the picture (basically full concrete with rails) - especially when the temperature differences are expected to be very high (typical for continental desserts/steppes).

Originally Posted by JMvS

...
Now compare it with a line laid on mostly flat central Asian steppes, connecting on both ends the two largest economic and population basins in the World.

You are underestimating these regions in terms of strain on HSR installments (the sand/dust alone can become a serious problem - which would require a banking on each side of the track to provide some protection against drifting sand).

Originally Posted by JMvS

...

Of course if you want to go above 300 km/h per hour, you'd better build new tracks, but guess what, that's already what they are doing.

If I am not mistaken none of these countries except China build such tracks yet?