Excess rail manufacturing capacity - repurposing ?

[yorksrob]

We have a lot of train manufacturing facilities in the country at the moment. These have dedicated and skilled workforces, yet it seems increasingly likely that we won't have enough train orders to occupy them all.

Could we perhaps repurpose some of them to manufacture the things that the country needs, such as solar technology, which we currently have to rely on unfriendly powers to provide.

During WW2, Churchill didn't wave his arms around bleating about the need for "markets" to provide the armaments necessary for the country to defend itself. He got industry doing it.

Could we re-purpose surplus train manufacturing capacity to meet the nations core needs, such as de-carbonisation and energy self-sufficiency?

 

[randyrippley]

We could certainly retool train manufacturing sites into tank and other armoured vehicle production lines.
It was done during WW2, it could be done again

 

[yorksrob]

We could certainly retool train manufacturing sites into tank and other armoured vehicle production lines.
It was done during WW2, it could be done again

Well, I was thinking more of our energy independence, however our allies in Europe do need our support in armaments as well, so that as well.

 

[randyrippley]

Well, I was thinking more of our energy independence, however our allies in Europe do need our support in armaments as well, so that as well.

WE need enhanced armament support, let alone our Allies.
If we're going to fight a near future war we urgently need to rebuild/rehabilitate/rework our tanks, APCs, guns and similar.
Something like two thirds of our Challengers aren't usable at the moment, and there are plans to cut the numbers rather than expand them. Similar problems across the whole military infrasctructure

 

[yorksrob]

WE need enhanced armament support, let alone our Allies.
If we're going to fight a near future war we urgently need to rebuild/rehabilitate/rework our tanks, APCs, guns and similar.
Something like two thirds of our Challengers aren't usable at the moment, and there are plans to cut the numbers rather than expand them. Similar problems across the whole military infrasctructure

This is very true.

We also need manufacturing capacity to become more energy self-sufficient.

So many needs the Country has that could be fulfilled.

 

[Bald Rick]

the skills needed to manufacture trains are rather different to those needed to make solar panels.

 

[yorksrob]

the skills needed to manufacture trains are rather different to those needed to make solar panels.

No one has skills until they're trained with them. Were the manufacturers of micro-chips in Taiwan born micro-chip manufacturers ?

 

[Meerkat]

the skills needed to manufacture trains are rather different to those needed to make solar panels.

Pretty sure making an Aventra is rather different from making a Challenger tank too!
Steam engines to WW2 tanks would have been a lot closer.

What about electric buses?

 

[Western Lord]

The only train manufacturing site in the UK is at Derby. All the others are assembly operations using bits made elsewhere. Basically they are big sheds which could easily be repurposed as carpet warehouses or similar.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the point is that these plants have skilled workforce. A skilled workforce can be re-skilled if necessary.

President Eisenhower once warned of the danger of a "military industrial complex" driving the economy, generating employment but tilting the country towards war. Why not have an energy generation industrial complex. It could drive the economy, generate employment but instead of war it would tilt the country towards energy self-sufficiency.

 

[willgreen]

I think the point is that these plants have skilled workforce. A skilled workforce can be re-skilled if necessary.

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment this is a poor argument. If it is so easy to train workers then what is so ‘special’ about the workforces at Derby, Newton Aycliffe etc? Are they somehow magically easier to train than the thousands of workers expected to be laid off at Port Talbot? Or does their involvement in the rail industry give them a special value?
(NB I broadly agree that we should support and expand British manufacturing- and if possible keep British factories open - however the argument that ‘training is easy’ somewhat undermines your point that the training these workers have already received is especially helpful.)

 

[edwin_m]

After Brexit, the UK isn't a particularly good place for multinational companies to locate production facilities, so anyone starting out with no existing connections to the UK would probably locate in the EU instead. Ironically that may explain why several train manufacturers set up in the UK a few years ago, seeing a big market and a government favouring domestic production, but that market has now mostly dried up.

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment this is a poor argument. If it is so easy to train workers then what is so ‘special’ about the workforces at Derby, Newton Aycliffe etc? Are they somehow magically easier to train than the thousands of workers expected to be laid off at Port Talbot? Or does their involvement in the rail industry give them a special value?
(NB I broadly agree that we should support and expand British manufacturing- and if possible keep British factories open - however the argument that ‘training is easy’ somewhat undermines your point that the training these workers have already received is especially helpful.)

I don't think it's so much about training being "easy". It's more that a trained workforce will be more attuned to what is needed for high end manufacturing and will be a head start.

I believe that the barriers to this happening are ideological, rather than anything to do with thd workforce.

Incidentally, Port Talbot is another manufacturing area that I think could contribute to such an improvement. To my understanding, the ability to manufacture steel will still be available, however through a lower carbon facility. Why don't we then get the workforce at Port Talbot doing other works that the nation needs.

After Brexit, the UK isn't a particularly good place for multinational companies to locate production facilities, so anyone starting out with no existing connections to the UK would probably locate in the EU instead. Ironically that may explain why several train manufacturers set up in the UK a few years ago, seeing a big market and a government favouring domestic production, but that market has now mostly dried up.

Perhaps we're too dependant on multinationals.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps we're too dependant on multinationals.

Even British companies are tending to set up facilities in the EU to allow them to trade more easily in the larger market. And a company manufacturing in the EU and selling in the UK has the advantage of a larger home market so is likely to win out over one doing the opposite.

 

[yorksrob]

Even British companies are tending to set up facilities in the EU to allow them to trade more easily in the larger market. And a company manufacturing in the EU and selling in the UK has the advantage of a larger home market so is likely to win out over one doing the opposite.

Its natural for a company to set up in a bigger market.

Why do we have to wait around for the multinationals ? There is a national need for low carbon technology and renewables - the country should do it.

 

[edwin_m]

Its natural for a company to set up in a bigger market.

Why do we have to wait around for the multinationals ? There is a national need for low carbon technology and renewables - the country should do it.

Actually it happens to some extent. One of the reasons Siemens chose Goole for their train plant was proximity to the facility they already had for making wind turbines. So there may be some flexibility to transfer people and facilities over to the turbines if and when the train orders dry up.

But I'm just making the general point that such facilities in the UK are less likely to find a use than those on the Continent. Unless the Government chips in a hefty subsidy, which they probably can't afford, and the historic record of such support tends to be that when the money stops the factory does too. On the other hand, if they were to invest in infrastructure to make the country more attractive for private investment...

 

[Bald Rick]

No one has skills until they're trained with them. Were the manufacturers of micro-chips in Taiwan born micro-chip manufacturers ?

Pretty sure making an Aventra is rather different from making a Challenger tank too!
Steam engines to WW2 tanks would have been a lot closer.

What about electric buses?

My point is that the skills needed to make solar panels are somewhat more basic than the skills needed to make trains. And therefore the pay is somewhat lower. Its not just those putting the things together, its the production engineers, designers, plant engineers, and all the support functions.

As @edwin_m says, one of the reaosns Siemens set up in Goole is that it is also has a wind turbine factory nearby. I also don‘t think its much of a coincidence that the two largest car plants in the UK are near the two largest train manufacturers (Toyota near Derby, Nissan in the North East) - the skills required are transferrable. (Similalrly Jaguar Land Rover near the former Alstom plant in Birmigham; you could have seen the Washwood Heath Plant from the Jaguar factory if the M6 wasn’t in the way).

The manufacturing requirements for solar energy are mostly in cabling, substations and all that goes with it - the panels are a small part. For offshore wind the turbines themselves are more, but then there is still a lot more, cabling again (proper heavy duty stuff too, and lots of it), substations (the size of oil rigs), and the structural steel for foundations and transitions. For obvious reasons these tend to be made somewhere on the coast, and usually the North Sea coast.

I do agree that in the event that the rolling stock market dries up - very likely - that ‘we’ need to retrain the workforce. But I also firmly be,eive that the factories should be mothballed in a way that enables them to be restarted as train manufacturers in short order. Converting them to building solar panels or wind turbines is not the answer.

 

[JKF]

Get them building trams, and have a decent tram network built in every city at the same time. Of course the lead time on the latter might not give the rolling stock manufacturers much work for a decade or so while more environmental reports are commissioned etc etc

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think what we really need to do is to slow down orders and have batches produced over longer periods!

If a fleet was introduced over 10 years say, then its replacement could also be delivered over 10 years in the future.

The trouble is, we try to replace fleets as fast as possible and all at once!

Yes this might mean smaller workforces, but at least it would be much more sustainable!

 

[JonathanH]

If a fleet was introduced over 10 years say, then its replacement could also be delivered over 10 years in the future.

Whilst that makes some sense, the impracticality is that sometimes the long fleet introduction has been a function of increasing the amount of rolling stock.

Take the 377 fleet on Southern as an example - the first units were built between 1999 and 2005, then a growth build in 2013. At present, they can operate together. When the time comes for fleet replacement towards the end of the 2030s, it will make sense for them to all be taken out of service together, so that the benefits of standardisation can be had. Keeping the 377/6 and 377/7 fleets for ten years when all the earlier units have gone, will be difficult.

 

[yorksrob]

My point is that the skills needed to make solar panels are somewhat more basic than the skills needed to make trains. And therefore the pay is somewhat lower. Its not just those putting the things together, its the production engineers, designers, plant engineers, and all the support functions.

As @edwin_m says, one of the reaosns Siemens set up in Goole is that it is also has a wind turbine factory nearby. I also don‘t think its much of a coincidence that the two largest car plants in the UK are near the two largest train manufacturers (Toyota near Derby, Nissan in the North East) - the skills required are transferrable. (Similalrly Jaguar Land Rover near the former Alstom plant in Birmigham; you could have seen the Washwood Heath Plant from the Jaguar factory if the M6 wasn’t in the way).

The manufacturing requirements for solar energy are mostly in cabling, substations and all that goes with it - the panels are a small part. For offshore wind the turbines themselves are more, but then there is still a lot more, cabling again (proper heavy duty stuff too, and lots of it), substations (the size of oil rigs), and the structural steel for foundations and transitions. For obvious reasons these tend to be made somewhere on the coast, and usually the North Sea coast.

I do agree that in the event that the rolling stock market dries up - very likely - that ‘we’ need to retrain the workforce. But I also firmly be,eive that the factories should be mothballed in a way that enables them to be restarted as train manufacturers in short order. Converting them to building solar panels or wind turbines is not the answer.

I agree 100% that we need to keep train manufacturing capacity here, building trains rather than being mothballed.

I do wonder whether, if we ever get to a situation where we have a steady rate of rolling stock replacement, we have enough railway to keep them all going.

 

[D365]

Take the 377 fleet on Southern as an example - the first units were built between 1999 and 2005, then a growth build in 2013. At present, they can operate together. When the time comes for fleet replacement towards the end of the 2030s, it will make sense for them to all be taken out of service together, so that the benefits of standardisation can be had. Keeping the 377/6 and 377/7 fleets for ten years when all the earlier units have gone, will be difficult.

Difficult in what sense? Given the sheer number of vehicles in existence, I don't imagine that maintaining engineering support for Electrostar units would be more challenging than any other fleet.

 

[JonathanH]

Difficult in what sense? Given the sheer number of vehicles in existence, I don't imagine that maintaining engineering support for Electrostar units would be more challenging than any other fleet.

It creates a efficiency problem with having a non-standard fleet, which doesn't exist at the moment.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Whilst that makes some sense, the impracticality is that sometimes the long fleet introduction has been a function of increasing the amount of rolling stock.

Take the 377 fleet on Southern as an example - the first units were built between 1999 and 2005, then a growth build in 2013. At present, they can operate together. When the time comes for fleet replacement towards the end of the 2030s, it will make sense for them to all be taken out of service together, so that the benefits of standardisation can be had. Keeping the 377/6 and 377/7 fleets for ten years when all the earlier units have gone, will be difficult.

Obviously to achieve a steady rate they will be an overlap and a neccessary boom just to ensure smooth transition. Potentially even replacing units that still have many years left just like what happened with Steam in 68!

Ideally all rolling stock needs to be controlled by one single leasing company. So joined up decisions can be made!