Would a strategic rolling stock plan actually ensure constant demand?

[JonathanH]

The wider plea was for DfT to produce a strategic rolling stock plan for the industry.

Would a strategic rolling stock plan make much difference? Surely it is pretty much adding 35 to 40 years onto the construction dates of the existing fleet.

It could still have pauses in building, because the starting point is that there hasn't been constant delivery of new rolling stock in the past. Moreover, it isn't straightforward to anticipate when there is funding for new rolling stock. The different factories and assembly plant would still be looking to compete with each other for the orders on offer.

A strategic rolling stock plan would also have to anticipate future cascades, if there are going to be units switching sphere of operation, and refurbishments.

In practice, what is actually being requested is constant orders for rolling stock. I suspect that the life cycle, speed of building and size of the rolling stock fleet doesn't all stack up without pauses. The position would be even worse if Derby had actually built its trains on the original schedule.

Everyone wants such a plan until they realise what it would entail.

What would it entail?

Is there an industry body for the manufacturers that could put forward such a plan? I reckon they would realise that somewhere along the line there would be a hiatus.

 

[HSTEd]

What would it entail?

Is there an industry body for the manufacturers that could put forward such a plan? I reckon they would realise that somewhere along the line there would be a hiatus.

Probably orderly closure of the bulk of UK manufacturing capability.

UK rail vehicle demand averages out to something like 400-500 National Rail vehicles per year.
There is no way you can support four separate manufacturing plants from multiple manufacturers on that basis.

A strategic plan would rapidly turn into the kind of albatros that Governments these days will do anything to avoid.

 

[JonathanH]

A strategic plan would rapidly turn into the kind of albatros that Governments these days will do anything to avoid.

Yes, so shouldn't that also be obvious to the manufacturers. It seems that the manufacturers are hungry for the rest of the ex-BR stock to be replaced as soon as possible, but that will then pretty much be it for a while.

If the strategic plan said that there was going to be a ten year gap in orders from about 2032, that isn't going to make things that much easier.

 

[Irascible]

UK rail vehicle demand averages out to something like 400-500 National Rail vehicles per year.
There is no way you can support four separate manufacturing plants from multiple manufacturers on that basis.

That is a problem - and will end up being a political one - whether there's a plan or not. A plan in place might have stopped the oversupply of plant capacity happening...

And a future one might mean we at least retain some capacity rather than managing to lose all of it.

 

[AngusH]

I suppose continuous low rate production and build+maintain+upgrade in the same factory/works might work.


Would manufacturers be willing to let a single factory produce under license?

I suspect trouble with the contract rules at minimum.

 

[JonathanH]

A plan in place might have stopped the oversupply of plant capacity happening...

That plan would have meant some of the recent builds not happening, and ordering from fewer manufacturers?

 

[Irascible]

That plan would have meant some of the recent builds not happening, and ordering from fewer manufacturers?

Yeah, and there'd be the possibility of long lead times being planned in too. Having competing plants doesn't seem to have done anything for quality of product, so I don't see having less manufacturing here as a problem...

 

[HSTEd]

That is a problem - and will end up being a political one - whether there's a plan or not. A plan in place might have stopped the oversupply of plant capacity happening...

And a future one might mean we at least retain some capacity rather than managing to lose all of it.

The problem is there isn't really much of a way to square this circle.
There is only enough work for one plant, but the government cannot allow a monopoly to be created for political reasons (it undermines the idea of a free meerkat in rolling stock)

The government orders trains from manufacturers it doesn't want to avoid threatened plant closures and loves opening new plants because it allows the politicians to go somewhere and cut a ribbon.

If all trains were just silently pumped out at 500 vehicles a year by a single production line none of those political opportunities would exist, although it would probably be better for the railway as a whole. And then the question of who will get to run the only passenger rail vehicle production line would become very thorny indeed.

 

[Irascible]

Westminster props up Derby, Welsh govt props up CAF, others finish their runs & reduce down to maintenance... I can't see Westminster propping up more than one factory & they'd tick the policy boxes. Maybe Alstom & Siemens can collaborate on something.

If we what-if & assume there wasn't a break in orders in the 90s, would we have had enough work to keep both ABB & Met-cam around?