• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Has the UK lost the ability to do large engineering projects post WW2?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
And the problem si without ludicrously heavy handed government intervention nothing would have happened at all.

We have no reached the point where we are bending the "market" so far out of shape that it's a straight up worse solution than just having state ownership.
At least state ownership avoids all the needless complexity and perverse incentives.
In the case of nuclear power state ownership ended up with a fleet of delayed, over budget, and unique, both as a type and almost individually, AGR reactors.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
In the case of nuclear power state ownership ended up with a fleet of delayed, over budget, and unique, both as a type and almost individually, AGR reactors.
As opposed to the utter disaster that is the EPR at Hinkley C?

You are aware that the construction record of the EPR is little better than the AGR? So far Olkiluoto is doing pretty much as badly as Olkiluoto, now projecting nearly 18 years to commercial operation. Flamanville 3 is nowhere near ready for operation and both Chinese EPRs are shut down due to core damage.

State ownership also delivered Sizewell B, a highly succesful build, and would have delivered six more had Thatcher not decided to smash the state.
So far the number of nuclear power stations delivered by the free meerkat is zero, and the current energy crisis is largely as a result of the meerkat's decisions over the past 40 years.
 
Last edited:

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
As opposed to the utter disaster that is the EPR at Hinkley C?

You are aware that the construction record of the EPR is little better than the AGR? So far Olkiluoto is doing pretty much as badly as Olkiluoto, now projecting nearly 18 years to commercial operation. Flamanville 3 is nowhere near ready for operation and both Chinese EPRs are shut down due to core damage.

State ownership also delivered Sizewell B, a highly succesful build, and would have delivered six more had Thatcher not decided to smash the state.
So far the number of nuclear power stations delivered by the free meerkat is zero, and the current energy crisis is largely as a result of the meerkat's decisions over the past 40 years.
Where did I suggest EPR was better? And your defence of state ownership is one reactor where they binned prior UK designs i.e. AGR and went with a bought in American one from that well known state corporation Westinghouse.
Was it Dungeness B that was 13 years late, I suppose Olkiluoto has beaten that.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
So far the number of nuclear power stations delivered by the free meerkat is zero, and the current energy crisis is largely as a result of the meerkat's decisions over the past 40 years.
I always knew there was a reason I preferred the meerkats to be kept in cages.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
The 230 is interesting.

is this a prelude to taking the 100 or so vehicles out of the scrapyard, renovation and exporting them to the US as part of a huge example of UK international innovation creating hundreds of jobs, investment in a factory etc to process rapidly, leading to further research in newer / alternative vehicles ?

or

another example of create the technology and give it away to another country to capitalise the idea ?
It's not "taking vehicles out of a scrapyard" as they were never going to a scrapyard. But you're right in that the idea of putting battery (and fast charging) onto a 230 was to lead into further development of self-powered vehicles. The Class 321s are a "second step" towards this.
 

E27007

Member
Joined
25 May 2018
Messages
663

Has the UK lost the ability to do large engineering projects post WW2?​

We can complete large projects, but the issues of "on time" and "within budget" are a concern
The ECML Electrification under BR was completed on time and in budget
The WCML project under Railtrack was a horror story for time and budget, similarly the GWML electrification.
Crossrail is not exactly a showcase either, and the budget overshoot for HS2 project should not be mentioned in polite company
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
In the case of nuclear power state ownership ended up with a fleet of delayed, over budget, and unique, both as a type and almost individually, AGR reactors.
Surely you can understand the idea of hedging your bets as a new technology develops?
 

Lost property

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
686
I think it's worth adding, that, the UK's ability to deliver large projects wasn't entirely due to financial or outmoded constraints. Beginning, roughly, in the late 70's, engineering ( generic sense)for example became a almost literally dirty word. In some respects, manufacturing was responsible for this demise with some appalling facilities, some are still around, sadly, but there was a distinct shift away from technical colleges / degrees because social perceptions were such that no way were little Tabatha (rare but there were some) and certainly Tarquin going to be working as something as unbecoming as engineers ...certainly not hands on engineers getting dirty when a nice air cond office and impressive job title was becoming more available...also, apprenticeships virtually ceased to exist.

However, society does evolve, well in the main, and ironically given the sectors infamy for killing its workforce over the years, the construction sector did start to become both more inclusive and also demonstrated it could deliver capital projects...and yes, I'm well aware of well known cost overruns ....likewise manufacturing engineering has adapted in the same way.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think it's worth adding, that, the UK's ability to deliver large projects wasn't entirely due to financial or outmoded constraints. Beginning, roughly, in the late 70's, engineering ( generic sense)for example became a almost literally dirty word. In some respects, manufacturing was responsible for this demise with some appalling facilities, some are still around, sadly, but there was a distinct shift away from technical colleges / degrees because social perceptions were such that no way were little Tabatha (rare but there were some) and certainly Tarquin going to be working as something as unbecoming as engineers ...certainly not hands on engineers getting dirty when a nice air cond office and impressive job title was becoming more available...also, apprenticeships virtually ceased to exist.

However, society does evolve, well in the main, and ironically given the sectors infamy for killing its workforce over the years, the construction sector did start to become both more inclusive and also demonstrated it could deliver capital projects...and yes, I'm well aware of well known cost overruns ....likewise manufacturing engineering has adapted in the same way.
A lot of engineers do work in air-conditioned offices - plenty of roles that don't involve site work at all. The perception of wearing hard hat and greasy overalls the whole time has probably done quite a bit of damage to the profession.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
All three examples you use are being built by highly regulated private companies. Of note of course that EdF has always had French government ownership and is it not now nationalised.
OK, so to demonstrate the public sector is particularly bad at major engineering projects, we need to have a private sector comparator. But do we actually have any examples of private companies, which are 1. not heavily regulated by the public sector and 2. undertake major engineering projects? North Sea Oil industry maybe? But that's a unique environment.
 

Lost property

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
686
A lot of engineers do work in air-conditioned offices - plenty of roles that don't involve site work at all. The perception of wearing hard hat and greasy overalls the whole time has probably done quite a bit of damage to the profession.
I'm very much aware of that and indeed their professionalism. although my opinions about UK Aerospace design engineers from a different era can't be printed on here.

The point I was trying to make, was, as I said, engineering in whatever form along with associated project management skills was forced into a decline when the "service sector " rose to prominence...now thankfully not having the allure it once did. I enjoy watching documentaries on any engineering related topic and thinking yep, we've come a long way since those dark days in many respects.

I agree entirely as to the stereotype image you correctly identify...happened to me more than a few times, as in I was asked did I work in a garage before coming here, or, possibly the best from a Cabin Crew member who was annoyed she wasn't going to get a standby seat on the jump seat, I had an operational standby priority, as to how would an engineer know anything about operating an aircraft !
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I'm very much aware of that and indeed their professionalism. although my opinions about UK Aerospace design engineers from a different era can't be printed on here.

The point I was trying to make, was, as I said, engineering in whatever form along with associated project management skills was forced into a decline when the "service sector " rose to prominence...now thankfully not having the allure it once did. I enjoy watching documentaries on any engineering related topic and thinking yep, we've come a long way since those dark days in many respects.

I agree entirely as to the stereotype image you correctly identify...happened to me more than a few times, as in I was asked did I work in a garage before coming here, or, possibly the best from a Cabin Crew member who was annoyed she wasn't going to get a standby seat on the jump seat, I had an operational standby priority, as to how would an engineer know anything about operating an aircraft !
I agree with most of what you say, but think the sort of engineering we are talking about here, supporting construction projects rather than something like manufacturing, would be counted as part of the service sector not an alternative to it.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Where did I suggest EPR was better? And your defence of state ownership is one reactor where they binned prior UK designs i.e. AGR and went with a bought in American one from that
The one the state employed managers at CEGB had wanted for over a decade at the time!
It was idiot politicians that required the AGR programme continue after the disaster of the first tranche of units. Just as politicians are the ones selecting reactor designs today [in the 'free market' system], just that they are French.

well known state corporation Westinghouse.
For a substantial period of time in the 2000s Westinghouse was actually owned by the British state, but that is kind of irrelevant to the point!
And the production AGR stations weren't designed by the state any more or less than Sizewell B was.

Was it Dungeness B that was 13 years late, I suppose Olkiluoto has beaten that.
Yes, the AGR saga is a story about rushing a reactor design into production without time to mature the design.
Almost all of the problems with the AGR are a result of believing the estimates of peole who today would be equipped with marketing powerpoints. And the private sector has pretty much the same amount of experience of being duped by those people as the state.

There were actually a lot of arguments between the two major state generating bodies about what reactor to procure in the 60s and 70s, the CEGB wanted AGR (then PWR after AGR turned into a debacle), but the SSEB (South of Scotland Electricity Board) wanted SGHWR or CANDU. Eventually the politicos came down on the side of the AGR for by-election related reasons. I often wonder what would have happened if SGHWR had won out - which was far less technically ambitious than the AGR and almost certainly would have actually worked.
 
Last edited:

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
5,642
Location
Croydon
The 230 is interesting.

is this a prelude to taking the 100 or so vehicles out of the scrapyard, renovation and exporting them to the US as part of a huge example of UK international innovation creating hundreds of jobs, investment in a factory etc to process rapidly, leading to further research in newer / alternative vehicles ?

or

another example of create the technology and give it away to another country to capitalise the idea ?


no excuse…

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing… 3M..

Caledonia Investments (aka Clan Line)

even Nestle broke free from its history for Nespresso.


boardroom politics, turf wars etc all get in the way of good companies. Nothing stopped BT going into hardware than its own decisions.. they could decide tomorrow to make washing machines if the business case was sound.

BT was well placed at the front of mobile technology, and like Nokia (a one time paper mill), and could have taken advantage of its knowledge of telco infrastructure, and switch to mobile telco.. perhaps BT thought mobile phones would never take off ?

its about embracing change, in that regard Britain (somewhat France) are lazy about it.
BT did set up a mobile phone network - TSCR.
they were there from day 1... they co-owned cellnet (and when they bought out the rest they renamed it to BT cellnet, later spun off as O2 - now that was probably a mistake!). as well as the earlier "radiotelephone" services that the Post Office started.

telecommunications is about standardisation, there's no need to make your own kit when there are lots of companies (some of whom used to be British anyway) willing to sell it to you.
Your right and in fact BT did it with Securicor. It was owned 60% by BT and 40% by Securicor proper name was TSCR (Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio). Trading as Cellnet for its public facing name. BT wanted the input from Securicor as they had experience of mobile communications in all their cash in transit vans and lorries. I ought to know as I worked for SCS (Securicor Cellular Radio) which was a service provider in the days when users did not deal with the networks. We got the history lessons. SCS was originally Robophone Communications bought by Securicor.

Those were the days - I had one of the first digital mobile phones to try and test - rather similar size/look as the first analogue hand transportables. A large battery with handle with a handset larger than any normal mobile phone on top connected with a coiled lead. I got some funny looks as I looked like I had a VERY out of date mobile when in fact it was state of the art !.
Indeed. It's not the engineers who lack capability.

No, it's the government (arts-educated civil servants and politicians in the main) and also the financier/rentier class who want to sell/live off the rent from assets- not build them. Maybe a class hang-over from the Victorian days when a "gentleman" lived off the work of others and trade/engineering was seen as somehow grubby.

Land ownership/value/use is a related issue, as is the propensity of the UK govt not to block sales of successful companies- e.g. the UK's only remaining wafer fab (micro-chip maker) in Newport is being sold to the Chinese and steel-making in Port Talbot is again under threat. These are strategic industries that we should be keeping here (along with the skilled jobs they bring).

TPO
This is the problem in the UK. Speaking to German companies it is apparent they have directors who have engineering degrees. Not marketing or finance degrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top