Third world trains?
There has been a series of indignant articles (couldn’t find the most indignant ones, but here’s one of them) in the SMH over the decision of the NSW government to award the contract for the next generation of CityRail trains to a consortium that will outsource the construction to Changchun Railway Vehicle Company in China. Every time the company is mentioned in the SMH, it is followed by the tagline “a company with little experience of supplying rolling stock to developed countries” (or words to the effect).
So yesterday, riding home on a rickety 1970s CityRail train with dirty seats, dirty floors, mismatched window panes and the suspension of a blender, I realised just how misguided the Herald’s “consternation” is. If you want third world trains, then CityRail has got to be the perfect specimen.
Badly maintained? check. Unreliable timetable? check. Crappy ticketing system? check. Hired goons who terrorise passengers? check. Lack of basic station infrastructure (rubbish bins)? check. Breaks down every two hours? check.
By contrast, rail systems in China are by and large reliable, on time, clean (if crowded), and well maintained. Rides are more comfortable because they’ve bothered to build suspension into the trains and properly maintain the tracks. The newer double decker trains have all the comforts and conveniences of the Millenium trains, but with smoother rides and without the regular breakdowns. (I couldn’t find any photos of Chinese trains – but here are some of the new Shanghai South station.)
What’s more, Changchun Car Company is in fact a joint venture with Bombadier of Germany, which builds carriages for Paris, New York, Hong Kong, Toronto, and Chicago, among others.
So instead of the xenophobic drivel from the SMH, it is more likely that we will finally get some trains that meet first world standards! Then if only CityRail would improve its running to 1930s standards, we’ll be about as well off as Mussolini’s Italy.
* * * * *
Speaking of xenophobic drivel from the SMH, this article is so ridiculously biased and misinformed it is not funny. Writing about Taiwan, and the 2008 Olympic torch relay controversy, reporter Mary-Anne Toy regurgitates undigested Chen Shui-bien’s propaganda by the chunk. She assumes that Taiwan is an independent country, which has nothing to do with China, and that Taiwan by rights should be in the UN and should be treated as an independent country by China and the rest of the world. For example, she talks about “24 countries that recognise Taiwan…” Anyone with any semblance of knowledge of modern Chinese history will know that those 24 countries recognise the Republic of China government (or Taiwanese government) as the government of China. No country recognises “Taiwan”, per se – but President Chen Shui-bien would clearly like you to think otherwise, and Mary-Anne Toy duely regurgitated his version.
I don’t know if she is seriously out of touch with reality, or whether she was just bought by the Taiwanese government’s hospitality (the telling line, in bold in the online version: “Mary-Anne Toy visited Taiwan this month as a guest of its government.”) The truth is, polling consistently show that the vast majority of Taiwanese want to preserve the ambiguous status quo, and only a small minority want to push for independence, or believe that Taiwan is a country independent from China. And, of course, Mary-Anne Toy cares nothing about what the rest of China thinks. They’re all commie-nazis anyway, so who would care what they think?
I think I will stick with Fin Rev. They might care only about money, but at least they don’t pretend bias is neutrality.
Yes, the quality of reporting and editorialising in the SMH has really gone downhill, and they wonder why their print media division is not doing as well as the rest of their media interests… I’m glad I only pay $20/year for it.
I was trolling the net as part of my normal procrastination process of diversion, refocus and attack when I came across your site. I am fascinated; however, your comments on the SMH articles are a bit rich particularly when one takes into account your reference point. I have not yet found a news organisation which was not parochial. When it comes to local jobs parochialism reigns supreme. The real intent of the article was that this country no longer has a sustainable manufacturing industry and coupled with that comes loss of jobs, apprenticeships, engineering expertise etc. It is not a finger pointing exercise at China but an indictment on ourselves.
I have to say that a comparison between Central railway station to the avant-garde glitz and glamour of Shanghai is a little unfair. Shanghai is a show case of a new age dawning, a jewel in the crown, a show piece yes – but it is not representative of the rail system in China. Much of what I saw was in poor condition, run down clappers – poverty, poor working conditions, and a police and military presence of striking proportions. China is a one party capitalist state not a socialist one. The Chinese press is not an example of unbiased news reporting, SMH is not a shade on CNA in this regard. As far as Taiwan is concerned it has a past that is as rotten as all totalitarian states. One cannot discuss Taiwan and not discuss Tibet. If you haven’t been to Tibet and opened your eyes then you will be enthralled by the massive Chinese engineering feats of epic proportions there but you will still be blind to the reality. What was your issue with the Falun Gong protests, (in your Apec article), it wasn’t a big deal – what do you have against them? Though they are lucky that they weren’t arrested and beaten with battons, I am sure that Premier Iemma would have wanted to do that – isn’t that what other governments do to their citizens. It is easy to be hoodwinked that a nation’s greatness comes about from such things as Mussolini’s Rail system, Hitler’s autobahn, China’s Tibet rail line or India’s nuclear weapons programs but these are not the indicators of where the future of humanity should be heading. Peoples self-determination will outlast states and empires, particularly ones run by kings, queens, dictators and communist states.