What happened to home built trains

[102 fan]

What happened to the building of trains in GB? How did it die out?

 

[transmanche]

What happened to the building of trains in GB? How did it die out?

Still plenty of trains being built in GB. Bombardier are currently working on what's said to be the largest single order of rolling stock ever placed in Britain - nearly 1,400 carriages of S stock for London Underground.

Hitachi are about to build a new factory to construct the IEP trains.

 

[ainsworth74]

But in terms of there only being Bombardier at Derby and eventually Hitachi at Newton Aycliffe the main thing would appear to the 1,000+ days without a single order in the mid 1990s when privatisation was in full swing. That would appear to be what did the damage for most of what was BREL (and others).

Of course it also didn't help that we couldn't just ring up BREL HQ any more and tell them to build x of this type of train and instead had to put it out to competitive tender opening up our indigenous industry to competition from the likes of Siemens.

 

[BestWestern]

It died with BR! Or just before, actually; BREL (British Rail Engineering Ltd) was sold off in 1989.

Under BR there were a number of major in-house works sites at which the vast majority new rolling stock was built throughout its existence. Sites included Crewe, Derby, Eastleigh, Doncaster, and York. In addition there were several outside firms, also UK-based, who received orders for new trains too; Brush Traction, Metro Cammell, Hunslet Barclay etc. Rarely did the construction of UK rolling stock go abroad, although of course components used in trains could potentially come from anywhere. The obvious exceptions would be the class 56, where the order was split between BR's own works and a sub-contractor in Romania, and the first General Motors diesel locos, the class 59, which I presume came from the same factory in Canada as their later but similar class 66 stablemates. In later years a lot of the technical kit going into new trains came from elsewhere, while BR built the shells and installed the internals supplied by the outside firms.

When BR came to an end the remaining works sites were acquired by various private firms who did their own thing with them; some carried on and won contracts to carry out work on existing stock, some closed down, and so on. As the new privately-owned train operating companies began to make their own decisions on rolling stock, orders started to go to all over the place, with new trains coming from various manufacturers not necessarily based in the UK. And thus foreign builders took over, though we do though currently still have the afore mentioned Bombardier, who although not being a UK owned firm do still construct trains in their UK factory at Derby. The days of numerous works churning out endless fleets of new trains is, sadly, long gone however.

 

[thelem]

While I'm sure the factors mentioned played it part, it's also just the way the modern world is. Trade barriers have reduced and manufacturing has moved away from the West to economies with cheaper labour. I'm not just referring to the train assembly (which may have only moved to continental Europe), but also the components.

There are signs that this trend is slowing though, as wages equalise and transport costs increase.

 

[BestWestern]

While I'm sure the factors mentioned played it part, it's also just the way the modern world is. Trade barriers have reduced and manufacturing has moved away from the West to economies with cheaper labour. I'm not just referring to the train assembly (which may have only moved to continental Europe), but also the components.

There are signs that this trend is slowing though, as wages equalise and transport costs increase.

True, but had we retained a state-owned railway, which would presumably have retained it's existing structure of works facilities, it's difficult to to imagine that construction would have been farmed out abroad at the cost of UK jobs while the facilities still existed to do it here.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Alstom (ex Met Camm/GEC) just gave up manufacturing in the UK (Washwood Heath) because of the poor quality of their Coradia/Juniper products (DMU 175/180, EMU 334/458).
Had things been different UK-built Alstom products would have won a large proportion of the big southern slam-door replacement orders which eventually went to Siemens in Germany.
Siemens won their reputation on the back of the foot-in-the-door Heathrow Express order (332), and then Leeds Suburban (333) in a joint venture with CAF of Spain who built the bodyshells.
The very large German-built orders for Class 450/444/350/360/380/185 followed.

Virgin went for Belgian-built Bombardier Voyagers for Cross-Country, before Bombardier bought Adtranz and the Derby factory with it.
They also went to Alstom for Pendolinos which were built in Italy but fitted out at Washwood Heath (the recent order extension was wholly built in Italy).
To complicate matters, Alstom EMUs (including Pendolinos) have high-value electric traction packages manufactured in Preston.

 

[Eagle]

...it's difficult to to imagine that construction would have been farmed out abroad at the cost of UK jobs while the facilities still existed to do it here.

That's the key point. Would the remaining manufacturing plants in the UK still have survived under a state-owned railway? Personally I think it would have ended up the same way, with only Derby surviving.

And out of interest (genuinely don't know) what proportion of modern SNCF trains are built in France? DB in Germany? NS in the Netherlands? And so on.

 

[jon0844]

True, but had we retained a state-owned railway, which would presumably have retained it's existing structure of works facilities, it's difficult to to imagine that construction would have been farmed out abroad at the cost of UK jobs while the facilities still existed to do it here.

I expect EU laws would have still made us put out to tender throughout Europe for building new stock.

Sent from my XT890 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BestWestern]

I expect EU laws would have still made us put out to tender throughout Europe for building new stock.

Sent from my XT890 using Tapatalk 2

Hmm. But if we had that Utopian leadership who had retained BR, they would surely also have 'done a France' and told the EU to sod off! Or paid it lip service and then given the work to the boys at home anyway!

On a serious note, I guess we might have seen a little more new stock had we kept the BR set up, but probably nowhere near enough to keep everything open.

That's the key point. Would the remaining manufacturing plants in the UK still have survived under a state-owned railway? Personally I think it would have ended up the same way, with only Derby surviving.

And out of interest (genuinely don't know) what proportion of modern SNCF trains are built in France? DB in Germany? NS in the Netherlands? And so on.

At circa £1m pound per coach, I can't see any Government sending all that money abroad. Surely better to keep it in Britain? And when you add in the costs of importing every single coach or loco on a ship, testing them at whatever location they are being built beforehand and so on, I don't see as much money would actually be saved by going abroad; if anything it would surely be likely to cost more? As for SNCF etc I don't know, but on a smaller scale you only have to look at vehicle fleet buying habits in Europe to see that there is loyalty there. Funnily enough, the last car mag I read had a little feature about how the UK police forces pretty much ignore home built cars (foreign parent companies admittedly) while in France they have hardly anything from outside the borders. I would very much imagine that the same applies in the likes of Germany and Sweden etc also.

 

[Eagle]

At circa £1m pound per coach, I can't see any Government sending all that money abroad.

You're missing my point.

I'm saying that there wouldn't have been enough facilities to build all the trains we need here. Because we'd likely have ended up in the same situation we have now, with only Derby still making trains (Crewe and York were on their last legs when BR Engineering was privatized in 1989, and Washwood was always privately owned so would probably have met the same fate as it did in reality).

 

[BestWestern]

You're missing my point.

I'm saying that there wouldn't have been enough facilities to build all the trains we need here. Because we'd likely have ended up in the same situation we have now, with only Derby still making trains (Crewe and York were on their last legs when BR Engineering was privatized in 1989, and Washwood was always privately owned so would probably have met the same fate as it did in reality).

I see

Well, would depend on the strategy I suppose. I've said above that we might have seen more new stock, I actually wonder whether in the same financial 'crisis' we may perhaps have seen less , witheven more making do going on, since the option of making rules and then dumping the cost on the private sector (sort of) wouldn't have been there. Would all those MK1's have been replaced so quickly if the state was directly picking up the bill I wonder?

 

[Eagle]

Indeed. I reckon if BREL was still publicly-owned in the current political climate one of the first moves the Government would have done would be "close that down, it's costing us a fortune to run, it's cheaper to farm it out to some foreign company". And then there'd be no trains built here at all.

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed. I reckon if BREL was still publicly-owned in the current political climate one of the first moves the Government would have done would be "close that down, it's costing us a fortune to run, it's cheaper to farm it out to some foreign company". And then there'd be no trains built here at all.

But how much cheaper would it be though, bearing in mind they'd still be paying the bill either way? Whilst foreign manufacturers would be established, would they be able to match the price of experienced UK factories once you factor in the additional costs of developing rolling stock abroad, shipping it all over and everything else? Perhaps.

 

[Eagle]

But how much cheaper would it be though, bearing in mind they'd still be paying the bill either way? Whilst foreign manufacturers would be established, would they be able to match the price of experienced UK factories once you factor in the additional costs of developing rolling stock abroad, shipping it all over and everything else? Perhaps.

All the extra costs of procuring trains from overseas must surely be smaller than the costs of maintaining a whole factory here.

 

[WatcherZero]

It makes me think it shared a lot of the problems most British industry such as shipbuilding, car production etc... also shared.

Small inefficent dispersed sites competing against each other for the work in the belief that it was their divine right to be given orders by the Government and propped up with loans to finance impovements to production lines, no national champion strong enough to stand up to international competition and not only compete with foreign manufacturers but compete on their home turfs.

Look what happened when the Government did properly reorganise all the small fighter production companies into one national champion before privatisation and market liberalisation, we got the world leading BaE.

All the extra costs of procuring trains from overseas must surely be smaller than the costs of maintaining a whole factory here.

Costs something like £50k to ship a carriage here from the continent, on the order of a carriage costing well over a million its a small margin which the foreign producers with their big centralised production, design and commisioning facilities producing hundreds if not thousands of carriages every year are well out competing local production by.

The Government and industry forecast the British domestic market if it was evened out and given a reliable rather than stop start procurement is around 200 carriages per year and could support two factories if the orders were evenly split.

 

[BestWestern]

All the extra costs of procuring trains from overseas must surely be smaller than the costs of maintaining a whole factory here.

Depends where you go I suppose! From a very basic viewpoint, if it costs X amount to build a train, plus the builder's profit etc, then you have to ship them all over, doing the same job for the same price in the UK but without the need for profit or shipping would surely be competitive? I wouldn't imagine that German train manufacturing staff are paid a great deal less than the chaps at Derby, and either way the cost of personnel has to be absorbed in the ultimate order price. You also have the advantage of guys who pretty much know already what they need to build, an internal system for testing and approval which can be done on the doorstep of the factory, and your maintenance facilities taken care of. That is another cost of new trains from outside builders of course, the maintenance deal that every new fleet now seems to come with.

Of course, the ability to churn out vast quantities would likely be lower, but then if you own the railway and set the rules you can take as long as you want I suppose!

 

[102 fan]

Thanks for the replies. It galls me that very few trains are built in GB. I'm no fan of privatisation or Europe, and it seems both have hindered the train building in GB.

 

[Eagle]

It galls me that very few trains are built in GB.

No, a lot of trains are built in Britain. At least half of the trains ordered since privatization have been built in Britain. I don't know where you get the idea that there's very little train-building going on here.

 

[DarloRich]

Best Western has it right, but the 1000+ day hiatus in orders did a great deal to kill of the remains of the industry in this country. That and a government hell bent on a cack handed railway privatisation agenda and structure coupled with industry polices that seemed designed to remove heavy industry from the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

Has more to do with this country‘s craven adherance to free market hocus pocus than anything else. Completely ignores the beneficial effect to local supply chains and employment, not to mention the strategic benefits of having your own train building industry that can provide a steady stream of rolling stock.

Of course, to do this, you also need a steady and coordinated procurement of rolling stock, something that was jettisoned by jonny major in his rush to privatisation.

 

[Oswyntail]

Whatever the factors that tipped the balance, in competition with other suppliers, the British candidates generally failed. This has been true of large swathes of manufacturing, and embraces costs (workforce and raw materials) and quality. The UK will always be disadvantaged by not having access to cheap raw materials, and there is nothing much we can do about it now the Empire's gone. The more successful firms are focused on high-end quality, but that is not going to appeal to any sort of mass market, and certainly not to rail companies. We do have an available workforce, but it is inflexible in its approach to costs (relatively high wages) and is no more available than the similar ones in our competitors. So basically, the UK is likely to be reduced to a flat-pack assembly warehouse, which is what Hitachi is setting up.

 

[DarloRich]

Whatever the factors that tipped the balance, in competition with other suppliers, the British candidates generally failed. This has been true of large swathes of manufacturing, and embraces costs (workforce and raw materials) and quality. The UK will always be disadvantaged by not having access to cheap raw materials, and there is nothing much we can do about it now the Empire's gone. The more successful firms are focused on high-end quality, but that is not going to appeal to any sort of mass market, and certainly not to rail companies. We do have an available workforce, but it is inflexible in its approach to costs (relatively high wages) and is no more available than the similar ones in our competitors. So basically, the UK is likely to be reduced to a flat-pack assembly warehouse, which is what Hitachi is setting up.

This, sadly, is the case today. It need not have been like this however. Decent, sensible government polices and support for industry (of various types) would have left us with a much better situation than we face today. Instead a dogmatic led determination to destroy industry was allowed to prosper and was continued by successive governments.

Clearly contraction was required, clearly improved standards would have had to be instilled and clearly complete isolation from market forces cant be allowed but the almost casual way in which industry in Britain has been allowed to be destroyed and the level of social depravation this has generated in many areas should also not have been allowed.

 

[The Crab]

The UK will always be disadvantaged by not having access to cheap raw materials, and there is nothing much we can do about it now the Empire's gone. .

I don't think that any of the major industrial countries (other than the USA?) have access to cheap raw materials.

 

[Chris125]

It has to be remembered that trains aren't 'built' in any one place these days, instead they are assembled from components and even whole sub assemblies manufactured throughout Europe, including Britain.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

Arguably:

(1) British industry after WW2 was run as an us-and-them way, with managers taking maximum short-term profit and both management and unions acting in a very confrontational way. Compare for example Germany where companies are much more a partnership.

(2) There is very little protection for companies in the UK - if they fail to deliver in the short term they are vulnerable to takeover by overseas companies (there are few UK ones left big enough to take anything over). When things get tough most companies will look to close their more remote branches rather than anything close to head office. Germany (again) makes hostile takeovers very difficult and, probably not coincidentally, industry can plan for the long term.

(3) Exchange rates totally skewed by the North Sea Oil Boom in the 70s/80s making it very difficult for other industries to be competitive. The benefit of more favourable exchange rates at various times since has been limited as there was little industry left to take up the challenge.

(4) Up until 1979 Government policy was to protect industries that were probably not competitive globally, by nationalisation and other measures. This abruptly reversed and ever since Governments have generally paid little attention to supporting the industrial base in procurement. Both policies were probably damaging and the abrupt change between them probably even more so. Exceptions are generally in the defence industry.

(5) UK has a disproportionately large financial sector, probably a larger fraction of our economy than any other major developed country, which:
(a) sucks in British talent that would otherwise be running manufacturing industry
(b) means that companies in the "real" economy are often treated as counters in a game of speculation
(c) means that Government policy is aimed at helping the City, which might not necessarily be helpful to anyone else
(d) means that investors have a choice of superficially attractive homes for their funds, both complex financial products and property, which promise better returns than shares in industrial companies

Is that enough reasons?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Germany (i.e. DB) has trains primarily built by Siemens, Bombardier & Alsthom. The first two are probably built in Germany but I have no idea where Alsthom construct their trains

 

[ainsworth74]

France I suspect as there was a huge hooha over there when Alstom didn't get the contract for the new Eurostar trains.

 

[D365]

Germany (i.e. DB) has trains primarily built by Siemens, Bombardier & Alsthom. The first two are probably built in Germany but I have no idea where Alsthom construct their trains

The same manufacturers have supplied almost all modern trains in Britain. The difference is in the background, Bombardier/ADTranz stemming from BREL/ABB and Alstom/Alsthom stemming from GEC/Metro-Cammell. Siemens entered the market initially through CAF and then with the Desiro UK, starting with SWT just as Alstom failed to deliver out-of-the-box.

Germany does have stock and components which are sourced from Austria, France and elsewhere, I believe. As has been said, it's much down to world trade.

[The "*star Country of Origin" topic seems to parallel this here in certain aspects]

 

[fgwrich]

Germany (i.e. DB) has trains primarily built by Siemens, Bombardier & Alsthom. The first two are probably built in Germany but I have no idea where Alsthom construct their trains

Most if not all of Alstoms products are produced either down in the Poitou-Charentes region of France at Alstoms La Rochelle plant or as the Pendolinos show in their Italian factory.