UK Train Building Future Under Threat? (A Telegraph Article)

[XAM2175]

We don't have a train building industry. Just assembling outlets of other country's train builders. We destroyed ours so trains like the one in my profile pic didn't get built.

"We deliberately dismantled our rolling stock industry in order to prevent the construction of some of NSE's concept fleets" is a particularly... interesting... take even by this forum's standards.

The problem is ever with boom and bust.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

As opposed to the proliferation of multiple working systems and technical inertia - persisting with vacuum brakes, steam heat, short-wheelbase wagons etc etc - that we had under BR. The one area that did deal with some of those issues, the Southern, got stuck with its own inertia in terms of retaining slam doors.

Always good to be reminded of this stuff, hah.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't there a story following the Thameslink order that suggested that, despite the 700s being assembled in Germany they actually had more components from UK suppliers than Bombardier's rival bid would have had?

The final assembly is only a small part of the process, but a "Built In The UK" plate adds a lot of political points.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

We have 30x379's stood idle soon to be joined by a stash of 350's. On top of that GA say they don't need all the 720's and given C2C aren't doing anything with there's either a few more there oh and should they ever get the 701's working it obvious they don't need all of them. The electrification schemes creeping along currently wont create any need for those units so its clear that no more EMUs are going to be needed anytime soon.

ScotRail have expressions of interest for their EMU replacement and BEMU fleet seems the only likely viable order. Yes SE indicating they want to procure something but best they can expect is to be given the dregs from everywhere else.

So where does this leave the kit builders? All the builders are finishing off orders with CAF clearly most exposed unless the Spanish owners are going to use the facility to support their non UK order book. Hitachi/Bombardier are some way off getting on with HS2 build and im sure the DfT will be seeking to slow down build rather than have expensive trains sitting idle. The govt are happy to let the steel industry goto the wall so im not expecting anything to happen here especially given the financial constraints the industry is in.

 

[JonathanH]

Even a Networker replacement build would just be kicking the can down the road, because what fleet do you come for after that?

The idea that Electrostars are for the chop before 2040 (other than the 379s) is ridiculous, yet they would be the oldest electric fleet running.

Essentially, there is a 10 year building hiatus in the offing in the near future with very lean times before then, certainly for electric trains.

 

[Mikey C]

Even a Networker replacement build would just be kicking the can down the road, because what fleet do you come for after that?

The idea that Electrostars are for the chop before 2040 (other than the 379s) is ridiculous, yet they would be the oldest electric fleet running.

Essentially, there is a 10 year building hiatus in the offing in the near future with very lean times before then, certainly for electric trains.

Sprinter replacement, and then the Turbos I guess would also be next. The 390s will presumably start being replaced in the mid 2030s?

Goole ought to be best placed, as it has work lined up for a decade to replace the 1973, 1972 and 1992 tube stock. By the mid 2030s, the 95 and 96 stock will start looking a bit old too.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

"We deliberately dismantled our rolling stock industry in order to prevent the construction of some of NSE's concept fleets" is a particularly... interesting... take even by this forum's standards.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner.


Always good to be reminded of this stuff, hah.

That is your particularly interesting interpretation of what I wrote!

 

[DanNCL]

There’s got to be three main reasons why there’s been a sudden slump in UK orders. One is that Whitehall are on a major cost cutting driver. One is that under the standard life cycle of rolling stock it’d be stock never built in the 90s new train hiatus that would be due for replacement. And one is that arguably too many new trains were ordered in the last decade.

I think if any of the UK sites are at risk it’s Newton Aycliffe. It’s not a massive site and with the exception of the 810s everything that’s come out of there needs to undergo extensive rectification work. That said though it isn’t the Hitachi site with the worst reputation!

Derby would get another bailout like it’s had before. Alstom is the second the largest employer in Derby (after Rolls Royce), it’d be politically unacceptable to let that one go.

Goole will no doubt get more LU orders for political reasons, both to keep the site open and because of the ever apparent need to replace the 72 stock on the Bakerloo line before the line grinds to a halt. Being next to the port the site could also easily be used for export orders, and would be advantageous over their other sites for any orders heading outside of Europe that can’t be fulfilled in Sacramento.

Newport is a small site so doesn’t need many orders to keep it going. Simply ordering another batch of 19xs would keep it going a few more years. And as with Goole it’s in a good location for export orders, although granted that isn’t as beneficial for CAF as it would be for Siemens.

Stadler is an interesting one. They’re the only major player in the UK market not to have a site here, and yet with the lack of a proper electrification plan and with Stadler having the only level boarding product, Stadler could easily be the only manufacturer to see a huge uptick in orders from the UK in the coming years.

Purely speculative now but part of me wonders if Hitachi will walk away from Newton Aycliffe and sell the site to Stadler.

 

[Facing Back]

There’s got to be three main reasons why there’s been a sudden slump in UK orders. One is that Whitehall are on a major cost cutting driver. One is that under the standard life cycle of rolling stock it’d be stock never built in the 90s new train hiatus that would be due for replacement. And one is that arguably too many new trains were ordered in the last decade.

I think if any of the UK sites are at risk it’s Newton Aycliffe. It’s not a massive site and with the exception of the 810s everything that’s come out of there needs to undergo extensive rectification work. That said though it isn’t the Hitachi site with the worst reputation!

Derby would get another bailout like it’s had before. Alstom is the second the largest employer in Derby (after Rolls Royce), it’d be politically unacceptable to let that one go.

Goole will no doubt get more LU orders for political reasons, both to keep the site open and because of the ever apparent need to replace the 72 stock on the Bakerloo line before the line grinds to a halt. Being next to the port the site could also easily be used for export orders, and would be advantageous over their other sites for any orders heading outside of Europe that can’t be fulfilled in Sacramento.

Newport is a small site so doesn’t need many orders to keep it going. Simply ordering another batch of 19xs would keep it going a few more years. And as with Goole it’s in a good location for export orders, although granted that isn’t as beneficial for CAF as it would be for Siemens.

Stadler is an interesting one. They’re the only major player in the UK market not to have a site here, and yet with the lack of a proper electrification plan and with Stadler having the only level boarding product, Stadler could easily be the only manufacturer to see a huge uptick in orders from the UK in the coming years.

Purely speculative now but part of me wonders if Hitachi will walk away from Newton Aycliffe and sell the site to Stadler.

Where would Hitachi assemble the HS2 rolling stock in that case?

 

[HSTEd]

As opposed to the proliferation of multiple working systems and technical inertia - persisting with vacuum brakes, steam heat, short-wheelbase wagons etc etc - that we had under BR.

Yes, BR made a mess in the rush to dieselise, and then proceeded to clean most of it up by the end of the BR era.

By privatisation the vast majority of BR rolling stock used one of a handful of multiple working and other systems. In passenger rolling stock the number was rapidly dwindling to three- one each for EMU, DMU and loco hauled stock. (EDIT: Essentially all PEP and later EMUs used the same 42-pin electrical specification, apart from the 442s for obvious reasons. Ditto everything from the beginning of Sprinterisation for DMUs, and TDM was conquering all before it in the passenger and electric loco space)

The one area that did deal with some of those issues, the Southern, got stuck with its own inertia in terms of retaining slam doors.

And yet was consistently ordering power door rolling stock by the end as well.....

I don't think having slam doors somewhat later than others (and they were far from the last to be rid of them in the UK!) is really a catastrophic failure.
The last Slam door train ordered on Southern Region was the final batch of 4REPs in 1974 wasn't it? In which case they weren't the last slam door stock ordered on BR - that wouldn't come until the end of Mark 3 construction in the late 80s.

BR created a load of mess as well in that period - as one example, units with ostensibly the same couplings being wired differently purely to stop different bits of the business borrowing each others' trains.

Which achieved very little in the end, given that the "different wiring" was simply having two pins on the coupler transposed.
As it proved when a bunch of trains proceeded to be converted between the two arrangements.

You can do that rather more easily than you can do anything to change the compatibility of a modern train.

 

[MattRat]

Well, if the government actually wants to meet their decarbonization plans, they'll have to start building bi modes pretty soon, because that's the only 'cheap' option while still achieving the goal.

 

[bramling]

As seen in today's Telegraph.

Haven’t we been here already with Newton Aycliffe? The Kitten theory rears it head all over again. And without an overnight rolling out of electrification or increased passenger demand on some routes, it’s hard to see, or how we can justify for that matter, any considerable rolling stock orders for a while (Or in Alstom & Hitachi’s case, until they’ve fixed the issues with their fleets first eg SWR 701 for Alstom and IET Cracking for Hitachi). Of course we will still need to eliminate somme DMUs in the future, but do we have enough in the pipeline to sustain that of 4 Large UK assembly plants?

And there’s certainly some credibility to all this.

There’s been something of a boom and bust cycle ever since the early to mid 90s (wonder what happened then?!), and the DFT haven’t exactly helped by going absolutely mad with EMU orders during the mid to late 2010s. In terms of EMUs we will soon be left with classes 318, 320 and 323 from the old school (all fairly small fleets), the 465/466 fleet, and barring a few EMUs for Scotland, maybe, that’s about it til 2035-40.

Even on the DMU fleet things are patchy as 150/156/158/165/166 isn’t massive, especially given the vast bulk of these are 2-car, so not that many vehicles.

So the only bulk orders would be Networker replacement (which DFT may well be able to whittle down using surplus from other fleets, especially as Southeastern metro seems to have a history of being sh*t on), Sprinter/Turbo replacement, and very tentatively perhaps a Voyager replacement for XC but I’m not sure who is going to pay for that. Otherwise it’s just north of the border, who seem to be doing things on a rather more rolling basis.

There’s HS2 I suppose, but if that gets whittled down to a core section then so will the number of trains required.

Rather a depressing picture to be honest, but this is in microcosm what the whole of Britain is at the moment. We screwed ourselves over with a prolonged Covid response which was clearly unaffordable, both directly and indirectly in terms of the impacts it has had across the economy, and here we now are.

 

[RobShipway]

Has there not been some Metro trains for somewhere in Europe being assembled in Newton Ayrcliffe?

Yes, Hitachi has the HS2 trains, but that was in association with Bombardier (Now Alstom), so those could be built in Derby?

Goole, as many have said will see employment I suspect for the next 30 years replacing LU stock.

The factory I believe with the issue, is CAF factory in Newport, South Wales. What happens after class 197 build is finished? Will any Civity trains that have been ordered by countries within Europe be built at Newport?

Not sure if it is still the case, but there was going to be two types of trains used on HS2. Those just purely use don HS2 and those that operate on HS2 and the national network. I believe that Hitachi/Alstom are to build the HS2/National network trains. So could CAF build the pure HS2 trains?

The other thing would be if Stadler where to build a factory within the UK or perhaps take over or joint own the CAF factory in Newport?

Given the surplus of trains for the services currently, other than perhaps HS2 and the LU trains, I cannot see any new trains being required for at least 20 years. By which time, the likes of class 150, 158/159, and many other DMU trains, hopefully would have been replaced with Electric/Battery trains.

 

[DanNCL]

Where would Hitachi assemble the HS2 rolling stock in that case?

Either in Italy or by Alstom in Derby.

 

[XAM2175]

That is your particularly interesting interpretation of what I wrote!

So what you meant is "We destroyed ours, and as a result trains like the one in my profile pic didn't get built"?

Still odd to swing between the hyperbole of "destroyed" and the trivial nature of the consequence, especially since the British rolling stock industry wasn't by any means "destroyed".

 

[Master29]

Because the Grauniad & Mirror produce such quality articles about rail?

Only this article isn't in either, and a lousy play of words on Guardian by the way.

 

[zwk500]

Only this article isn't in either, and a lousy play of words on Guardian by the way.

Believe it's a Private Eye reference

 

[Sad Sprinter]

So what you meant is "We destroyed ours, and as a result trains like the one in my profile pic didn't get built"?

Still odd to swing between the hyperbole of "destroyed" and the trivial nature of the consequence, especially since the British rolling stock industry wasn't by any means "destroyed".

It's not that odd being a train enthusiast on a train enthusiast forum where trivialities carry more weight than they actually have... Plus I'm a Network SouthEast/Networker fanatic, so that's why it matters to me.

And besides, it's not trivial. The train in my picture, the unbuilt Universal Networker would have been deployed on Thameslink by the late 90s. Instead 20 years later Thameslink finally got its class 700s by Siemens, meaning billions of pounds worth of electrical engineering and train design that could have been done in the British Isles was needlessly exported abroad. Our industry was "destroyed" by a complete carelessness by our political class, who for decades cheered on the demise of British manufacturing for, what reason? Class snobbery ultimately.

 

[Facing Back]

Either in Italy or by Alstom in Derby.

I'm pretty sure that they are committed in the award to assemble to trains in the UK. Whilst the delay in HS2 might mean an opportunity to renegotiate some of the terms, I would be astonished if the government gave up this condition.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

And there’s certainly some credibility to all this.

There’s been something of a boom and bust cycle ever since the early to mid 90s (wonder what happened then?!), and the DFT haven’t exactly helped by going absolutely mad with EMU orders during the mid to late 2010s. In terms of EMUs we will soon be left with classes 318, 320 and 323 from the old school (all fairly small fleets), the 465/466 fleet, and barring a few EMUs for Scotland, maybe, that’s about it til 2035-40.

Even on the DMU fleet things are patchy as 150/156/158/165/166 isn’t massive, especially given the vast bulk of these are 2-car, so not that many vehicles.

Presumably TfW will liberate all the 158's in due course along with 170's off WMT will allow some of the worse of 150/6's to be dispensed with and buy a few more years.

So the only bulk orders would be Networker replacement (which DFT may well be able to whittle down using surplus from other fleets, especially as Southeastern metro seems to have a history of being sh*t on), Sprinter/Turbo replacement, and very tentatively perhaps a Voyager replacement for XC but I’m not sure who is going to pay for that. Otherwise it’s just north of the border, who seem to be doing things on a rather more rolling basis.

Technically the 379's and 350's could be readily converted to run on third rail which would give c50x4car units goes along way to dealing with 465's. Then the surplus GA 720's could be converted as well so lots of micro fleets but all on a known platform.

 

[RailWonderer]

It's not that odd being a train enthusiast on a train enthusiast forum where trivialities carry more weight than they actually have... Plus I'm a Network SouthEast/Networker fanatic, so that's why it matters to me.

And besides, it's not trivial. The train in my picture, the unbuilt Universal Networker would have been deployed on Thameslink by the late 90s. Instead 20 years later Thameslink finally got its class 700s by Siemens, meaning billions of pounds worth of electrical engineering and train design that could have been done in the British Isles was needlessly exported abroad. Our industry was "destroyed" by a complete carelessness by our political class, who for decades cheered on the demise of British manufacturing for, what reason? Class snobbery ultimately.

What? The 319s were only 10 years old, nothing would have replaced them.

 

[Brubulus]

What? The 319s were only 10 years old, nothing would have replaced them.

I believe they were to be cascaded to Regional with further electrification and via a cascade series, to replace the Pacers.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Only this article isn't in either, and a lousy play of words on Guardian by the way.

Perhaps you don't realise the origin of 'Gruniad'

In the 1970s it was infamous for the number of misprints. At the top of each page it should have said 'The Guardian - Page -' but on one occasion the misprints extended to this, and it said 'The Gruniad Page -'
See 'Private Eye' passim, as they say.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What? The 319s were only 10 years old, nothing would have replaced them.

I believe they would have been used for Thameslink 2000/CTRL services. If you look at the destination screen on my picture, it reads "Peterborough"

 

[Dr Hoo]

I believe they would have been used for Thameslink 2000/CTRL services. If you look at the destination screen on my picture, it reads "Peterborough"

Hmm. An interesting engineering challenge. Producing a single design that would be equally suitable for the Wimbledon Loop with crush loads through the Core and running at up to 140mph towards Dover, etc. Not to mention any government funding Thameslink 2000, the CTRL (and Crossrail) simultaneously with electrification of further routes elsewhere to accept a cascade of ten-year-old Class 319s all in the middle of the 1991 financial situation.

Nothing like a bit of hubris before nemesis I suppose.

 

[snowball]

Perhaps you don't realise the origin of 'Gruniad'

In the 1970s it was infamous for the number of misprints. At the top of each page it should have said 'The Guardian - Page -' but on one occasion the misprints extended to this, and it said 'The Gruniad Page -'
See 'Private Eye' passim, as they say.

Private Eye always spells it Grauniad with two a's.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Private Eye always spells it Grauniad with two a's.

Thanks, yes, relying on ageing memory.
As a aside, one of the oddities of most Guardian misprints was that the mistake made it into another word which sometimes still made sense. The one I particularly remember was when they printed 'and the police then ponced' where presumably the intended word was 'pounced' - I will leave the context hanging...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Hmm. An interesting engineering challenge. Producing a single design that would be equally suitable for the Wimbledon Loop with crush loads through the Core and running at up to 140mph towards Dover, etc. Not to mention any government funding Thameslink 2000, the CTRL (and Crossrail) simultaneously with electrification of further routes elsewhere to accept a cascade of ten-year-old Class 319s all in the middle of the 1991 financial situation.

Nothing like a bit of hubris before nemesis I suppose.

I think 319s would have been used on Wimbledon's. 371s on Peterboroughs and 342 high speed trains on the CTRL.

 

[JonathanH]

One of the implications of the cut backs in HS2 will be to reduce the size of the train fleet. 3tph Old Oak Common to Curzon Street might only need 10 units to be constructed.

 

[XAM2175]

And besides, it's not trivial. The train in my picture, the unbuilt Universal Networker would have been deployed on Thameslink by the late 90s. Instead 20 years later Thameslink finally got its class 700s by Siemens, meaning billions of pounds worth of electrical engineering and train design that could have been done in the British Isles was needlessly exported abroad. Our industry was "destroyed" by a complete carelessness by our political class, who for decades cheered on the demise of British manufacturing for, what reason? Class snobbery ultimately.

You would have done better to actually present this point in this form upfront, rather than simply waving vaguely at your profile picture.

I also note that you say the "late 90s". Now, by that point, BREL had been fully acquired by ABB and was a year or three into being part of Adtranz, while Metro-Cammell was nearly ten years into of being part of GEC-Alsthom. So your Universal Networker, had it been ordered and delivered, would have been been delivered by the Swiss-German Adtranz and/or the (barely Anglo)-French GEC-Alsthom.

Yet in your first post, you say:

We don't have a train building industry. Just assembling outlets of other country's train builders.

Meaning that even the Universal Networker wouldn't have been good enough for you? Or is it enough that most, if not all, of the design work would presumably have been in the UK even if the ultimate profits appeared in annual reports published in Berlin or Paris?

Also, using "British Isles" seems a bit odd. Why specifically include Ireland?

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately the political class wants it both ways.

They want a "competitive" market in rolling stock procurement, but they also want the vast majority of UK rolling stock "built" in the UK.

This results in the endless crises like the one that triggered this thread.

It has to chose one or the other, both is not sustainable.