Rail Magazine noted Britains first Class 70 freight loco’s landed in the UK from the USA. Not long ago the first Class 90’s, named Javelin for high speed lines in Kent came in from Japan. Pendolino’s from Italy. Some Eurostars from France.
We exported some British made 30 year old Class 87’s to Bulgaria.
Seems like everyone is building loco’s except the UK. This is fairly typical of UK manufacturing yet it is said we are the 6th biggest manufacturer in the World.
The philosophy of getting the best deal and using the saving elsewhere, not spending on development that might not be recovered and spending that elsewhere sounds admirable. Yet there is a certain shallowness about it.
It is often said that governments don’t make the best industrial investment decisions and after a number of notable bad decisions it seems the government totally handed over to the market.
Strictly speaking the government can’t be seen to be making decisions based on national criteria although it seems to be unquestioned that other countries have home made railways and their car industries miraculously continue despite products of dubious quality.
It also seems the days of militant trade unions have gone and now British workers work very hard for foreign owners. British companies were unable to take benefit of this new reality, possibly because there was always a feeling the government would bail them out.
It wouldn’t be too difficult for the government to give a contract to a British company. The high speed train programme of £30bn, how much of this is for locomotives. How difficult would it be to establish a UK loco and engine manufacturing capability in a company such as GKN with some training thrown in via local colleges and technology demonstration. Perhaps a step in rail technology is due as the new high speed rail extension will take 15 years to bring on stream. The government left the market to go its way and has spent unprecedented amounts that make the inputs to British Leyland look like loose change. A fraction of that spent on technology would have provided a tangible output, less imports and potential exports, less inequality of employee salaries, and employment of a more multi-ability workforce.