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

[najaB]

On the specific issue of rail and rail rolling stock, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to compete with the US on equal terms? After all our rail network and therefore our own domestic market must surely be as big as the domestic market in America (based on numbers of scheduled passenger services, maybe not on length of track).

Our rolling stock designs don't suit the American market though - they have a much larger loading gauge, and generally have low platforms.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Our rolling stock designs don't suit the American market though - they have a much larger loading gauge, and generally have low platforms.

So we're kinda equal really. We can't sell our trains to them, and they can't sell their trains to us.

 

[ABB125]

To answer the original question, no we haven't lost the ability to do large engineering projects.
We do seem to have lost the ability to do them for a reasonable cost though! (Especially in the public sector.)

 

[nlogax]

So we're kinda equal really. We can't sell our trains to them, and they can't sell their trains to us.

We tried.. I mean SEPTA got a Pacer for a bit and we've sent some 230s to the same neck of the woods in recent months

 

[Gostav]

On the specific issue of rail and rail rolling stock, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to compete with the US on equal terms? After all our rail network and therefore our own domestic market must surely be as big as the domestic market in America (based on numbers of scheduled passenger services, maybe not on length of track). And in terms of rail investment.... Comparing progress on our own HS2 with California's planned high speed railway suggests we possibly have the edge in being able to deliver those kinds of projects )

In the face of competition from the Soviet Union, the US and came after, China, and even the increasingly united EU, UK should have integrated colonies and former colonies as much as possible and turned them into part of their own market, but the British government did not do it, so it is not surprising that British colonies and industries are dying. It is difficult for a small island to support an whole industry.

A typical example is that before 1997, British Hong Kong no longer purchased British trams for its light rail system. Before electrification, the diesel locomotives on Kowloon-Canton Railway were made by GE, and the carriages were made in Japan. Even British colonies not use British products.

 

[najaB]

... so it is not surprising that British colonies and industries are dying

Your use of present tense in reference to British colonies is interesting. Our Overseas Territories have a combined population that's smaller than Belfast's, so don't really represent much of a market.

 

[Magdalia]

No, if only we were part of a high-spend single market of over 300M. Oh, wait.

That was never an intention of the EU though was it?

The single market wasn't the original intention of the EEC. It dates from the 1980s, and one of its main protagonists was, er, Mrs Thatcher.

 

[edwin_m]

So we're kinda equal really. We can't sell our trains to them, and they can't sell their trains to us.

Most passenger stock is purchased with Federal funding, which has "buy American" requirements attached. Some European train and LRV designs have made it to the States with appropriate modifications to account for different standards, but the manufacturer nearly always has to open a factory in the USA.

As to running projects, there are still a lot of national standards and practices in countries with established engineering bases, which makes it difficult for overseas companies to break in (and they also face extra costs when operating outside their own markets). Even in countries without that established tradition, local presence is probably essential.

 

[XAM2175]

So we're kinda equal really. We can't sell our trains to them, and they can't sell their trains to us.

Strange, I seem to remember Classes 59, 66, and 70 coming from the other side of the pond

Not to mention the EMD engines in Classes 57 and 69, and the various Cummins and Caterpillar types all over the place.

In the face of competition from the Soviet Union, the US and came after, China, and even the increasingly united EU, UK should have integrated colonies and former colonies as much as possible and turned them into part of their own market, but the British government did not do it, so it is not surprising that British colonies and industries are dying. It is difficult for a small island to support an whole industry.

This is a very bizarre take. Do you mean only the colonies, or the Dominions as well?

 

[sor]

Then look at Finland, Nokia, Sweden, Ericsson.. took a risk that could have sunk the country…. Yet they were forefront of mobile tech globally, including the US for a decade…where was BT in this game ?

Not their business. BT operates equipment, they largely don't make it. Even in its former Post Office incarnation it might have taken part in the R&D but left it to industry to turn it into a marketable and exportable product.

You want to be directing attention to the now extinct Marconi - the last major British telecoms equipment manufacturer - who overextended themselves in the dot com boom including placing huge bets on the wrong technology and never really recovered. Final death knell came when BT was about to start a huge network modernisation programme and left Marconi out of it (despite their products being the best even when stacked up against the global competition, by some accounts). Ericsson bought most of the carcass.

Even Nokia's current dominance is not entirely the result of home grown innovation. A large part of what they sell today (including the fibre broadband equipment that they sell to BT and others) actually comes from their acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent, the Lucent part being the corporate successor to the much celebrated Bell Labs/Western Electric. Though it's fair to say Nokia have certainly taken risks, since they were at one point a pulp mill and tyre manufacturer!

Perhaps also worth pointing out that when BT did try to be truly "world beating" (to borrow the current government's buzzwords) by rolling out fibre to the home in the 90s, the then government stopped them because it felt competition (from the companies that merged into what is now Virgin Media) was more important.

 

[Sm5]

We tried.. I mean SEPTA got a Pacer for a bit and we've sent some 230s to the same neck of the woods in recent months

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 ?

Not their business. BT operates equipment, they largely don't make it. Even in its former Post Office incarnation it might have taken part in the R&D but left it to industry to turn it into a marketable and exportable product.

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.

 

[E27007]

The cancellation of TSR2 being a great example of a politically inspired failure. Didn't the USA wave some F1-11s in our face only for us to continue with Buccaneers and eventually collaborate to build the Tornado?

TSR2 and Concorde were both cancelled following a General Election, , the Conservatives lost , the outgoing Chancellor Anthony Barber "the Barber Boom Chancellor" briefed the new Labour Chancellor with the news of "the money is all gone, there is nothing left in the kitty"
The contract with the French was binding, withdrawal leaving the French to go alone meant footing half of the bill anyway, Concorde was reinstated. Historians have expressed the view, the Concorde project was our passport to joining the EEC, France having vetoed our applications for membership. if the historians were correct, was our accession to the the EEC a failure or a success?

postscript, memory fade, Cabinet papers released under 30-year rule show Wilson Govt trying to ditch Concorde project
ERROR: the Chancellor was Reginald Maudling, not Barber

 

[tomuk]

TSR2 and Concorde were both cancelled following a General Election, , the Conservatives lost , the outgoing Chancellor Anthony Barber "the Barber Boom Chancellor" briefed the new Labour Chancellor with the news of "the money is all gone, there is nothing left in the kitty"
The contract with the French was binding, withdrawal leaving the French to go alone meant footing half of the bill anyway, Concorde was reinstated. Historians have expressed the view, the Concorde project was our passport to joining the EEC, France having vetoed our applications for membership. if the historians were correct, was our accession to the the EEC a failure or a success?

TSR2 was cancelled in April 1965 six months after the October 1964 election.

The treaty with France to build Concorde was signed in November 1962 and the project was seen as away to get on side with the French as regards EEC membership. De Gaulle vetoed our membership anyway in Jan 1963. The then followed the whole farrago about the e.

Anthony Barber was chancellor 1970-1974, the first production Concordes flew in January and February 1975 so I'm not sure when this supposed cancelation happened and he definitely had no connection to TSR2.

 

[E27007]

TSR2 was cancelled in April 1965 six months after the October 1964 election.

The treaty with France to build Concorde was signed in November 1962 and the project was seen as away to get on side with the French as regards EEC membership. De Gaulle vetoed our membership anyway in Jan 1963. The then followed the whole farrago about the e.

Anthony Barber was chancellor 1970-1974, the first production Concordes flew in January and February 1975 so I'm not sure when this supposed cancelation happened and he definitely had no connection to TSR2.

postscript, memory fade, Cabinet papers released under 30-year rule show Wilson Govt trying to ditch Concorde project
ERROR on my part, the outgoing Chancellor was Reginald Maudling, who emptied the public kitty.

 

[Richard Scott]

To answer the original question, no we haven't lost the ability to do large engineering projects.
We do seem to have lost the ability to do them for a reasonable cost though! (Especially in the public sector.)

Not sure cost is an issue, marketing is our problem. Nothing particularly special about German cars but they market them well and sell them at a premium price.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that if you're going to do "big" projects and large scale industry, it helps to have the mittelstrand of smaller companies to form a reliable domestic supply chain.

The main constraint with Sheffield seems to me to be the two track bottleneck to the North, therefore without doing something with this, large scale remodelling seems pointless.

As alternatives, one might consider doing something to lengthen 2c to make it useful again. One could also consider replacing the building at the North end of the eastern island platform with another bay for terminating trains.

A wider (or perhaps additional) footbridge would also be desireable to aid movement.

 

[quantinghome]

Was it all spent on the empire? Remember, in the late 1940s, we, along with the whole of Western Europe, were facing what looked like a plausible imminent threat of invasion by Stalin's USSR. Now that most of Eastern Europe is democratic and pro-Western, it's easy to forget just how close and how big the threat would've seemed, with the West/Communist border running through the middle of what is now Germany - an awful lot closer to home than today's democracy/autocracy border.

I don't know the details of UK military expenditure in the 1940s and 1950s, but I would imagine that threat would've been the main thing worrying military minds.

The most detailed account of UK military thinking at the time that I've seen is Correlli Barnett's 'The Lost Victory'. It's pretty scathing and talks at length on Britain's mistaken military priorities. He estimates that 4% of GDP would have been an appropriate level of defence spending during the Cold War, which sounds about right given that's roughly what West Germany spent once they joined NATO, and what we were spending in the 1980s, when most of our imperial commitments had disappeared.



There is difficulty in separating military spending on the Cold War and retaining colonial possessions at the time. Take Malaya for example. Was that propping up the empire or part of the cold war?

 

[GS250]

TSR2 and Concorde were both cancelled following a General Election, , the Conservatives lost , the outgoing Chancellor Anthony Barber "the Barber Boom Chancellor" briefed the new Labour Chancellor with the news of "the money is all gone, there is nothing left in the kitty"
The contract with the French was binding, withdrawal leaving the French to go alone meant footing half of the bill anyway, Concorde was reinstated. Historians have expressed the view, the Concorde project was our passport to joining the EEC, France having vetoed our applications for membership. if the historians were correct, was our accession to the the EEC a failure or a success?

postscript, memory fade, Cabinet papers released under 30-year rule show Wilson Govt trying to ditch Concorde project
ERROR: the Chancellor was Reginald Maudling, not Barber

Thanks for this. Wasn't there some American influence re TSR2 though? Maybe they had us as a definite customer of the F1-11 as we may have or had already shown some interest in the F4 Phantom? Determination to self produce or at least collaborate with Europe had been shattered by the F4 purchases even though this trend was reversed until the procurement of the Apache. Obviously there were weapons from the USA such as the Sidewinder.

 

[ainsworth74]

Wasn't there some American influence re TSR2 though?

Not to my knowledge. It was just very expensive and the F-111 was seen to be the cheaper choice and would be ready sooner. As it was we had economic troubles in the late 60s and the decision to withdraw the bulk of UK forces from East of Suez by the early 70s meaning that the F-111 itself became more expensive as the pound devalued and the need for a long range strike platform also reduced as we focused more and more on operations in Europe. No conspiracy US conspiracy to make us by their jets to me knowledge. As far as I'm aware it's a broadly similar story with the F-4. UK options were expensive and wouldn't be available for many years. F-4s were cheaper and available immediately.

 

[najaB]

Not to my knowledge. It was just very expensive and the F-111 was seen to be the cheaper choice and would be ready sooner. As it was we had economic troubles in the late 60s and the decision to withdraw the bulk of UK forces from East of Suez by the early 70s meaning that the F-111 itself became more expensive as the pound devalued and the need for a long range strike platform also reduced as we focused more and more on operations in Europe. No conspiracy US conspiracy to make us by their jets to me knowledge. As far as I'm aware it's a broadly similar story with the F-4. UK options were expensive and wouldn't be available for many years. F-4s were cheaper and available immediately.

That matches my understanding of events. TSR2 was an amazing aircraft but we just didn't have (or at least believed we didn't have) the money that it would have required to go into serial production - especially since we wouldn't have the economies of scale provided by the expected USAF/USN orders for the TFX. As it turned out, the USN pulled out of the project as it seemed that the F-111B model wouldn't have met their requirements, and the smaller than expected USAF order for the F-111A meant that the unit cost went up considerably.

 

[yorksrob]

The most detailed account of UK military thinking at the time that I've seen is Correlli Barnett's 'The Lost Victory'. It's pretty scathing and talks at length on Britain's mistaken military priorities. He estimates that 4% of GDP would have been an appropriate level of defence spending during the Cold War, which sounds about right given that's roughly what West Germany spent once they joined NATO, and what we were spending in the 1980s, when most of our imperial commitments had disappeared.

View attachment 119037

There is difficulty in separating military spending on the Cold War and retaining colonial possessions at the time. Take Malaya for example. Was that propping up the empire or part of the cold war?

It was a communist insurgency, so take your pick !

 

[TPO]

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

No.

My view: We were on a hiding to nothing after WW2, with the USA (our economic and political enemy) calling the shots, requiring us to lose markets, pay vast debts and to concede premature independence to "democratic" post-colonial governments, causing mayhem in the third world. (eg Sri Lanka today)

Winners actually lose wars in that they have to pay off their loans (losers are bankrupt) and have also incurred greater debts in order to "win". Also the "winners" have to bale out the losers - I've read that 20% of our Marshall Aid went on feeding starving Germans whose debts were forgiven in 1953 and were merrily exempt from defence spending. They continued their protectionist policies as a predatory economy like Japan.

We did plenty of harm to ourselves of course. Railways were "Nationalised" but in reality were given a conflicting structure with a two headed structure of BTC and RE. Hence no decision possible for Diesel and Electric traction, as wished for by Sir E J Missenden after returning from the USA and Riddles ruled. Concorde was a failure before it was built, as warned by Prof Kucheman - only an all wing 400 seat supersonic jumbo being viable. Our space program was a technical success - our rocket control worked without crashes but we didn't have the will to sustain it. Nuclear power was a relative success in that we could force the USA to let us have the bomb again but we stupidly tried to invent about six parallel types of nuclear power station, each of which almost worked, instead of, like France, one, which actually did work.

I could go on (and often do) but I think our electrification has been a success with 2/3 of our services now being electric, mostly on the most modern 25kV system, not 1500Vdc, even if that's still only a minority of route mileage. The contracting failures have been down to DfT's damage to the industry in Major and Blair/Brown's time.

On the original topic, UK Engineering Companies (and Engineers) do run big contracts around the world and are highly respected for competence, integrity and creativity. A bigger home market would help them as it does their government supported competitors.

A jaundiced view.

WAO

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

 

[david1212]

To answer the original question, no we haven't lost the ability to do large engineering projects.
We do seem to have lost the ability to do them for a reasonable cost though! (Especially in the public sector.)

.... linked to which is completion if not on time at least relative to the total project time not too far after the planned date.

 

[sor]

perhaps BT thought mobile phones would never take off ?

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.

 

[Lost property]

Not to my knowledge. It was just very expensive and the F-111 was seen to be the cheaper choice and would be ready sooner. As it was we had economic troubles in the late 60s and the decision to withdraw the bulk of UK forces from East of Suez by the early 70s meaning that the F-111 itself became more expensive as the pound devalued and the need for a long range strike platform also reduced as we focused more and more on operations in Europe. No conspiracy US conspiracy to make us by their jets to me knowledge. As far as I'm aware it's a broadly similar story with the F-4. UK options were expensive and wouldn't be available for many years. F-4s were cheaper and available immediately.

The UK version of the F-4 was purpose built due to a combination of political and technical reasons. The design had to be altered to accept a Spey and the engine was virtually "shoe horned " into the structure plus, it was fitted with re-heat which was never part of the original design. An engine change was a protracted affair and the aircraft was very labour intensive. The Spey did offer more power than the original J79 GE 17and didn't produce the classic smoke trail however, that said, re-heat when engaged could be temperamental

The US version proved to be one of the best versatile platforms ever designed. Equally, it was responsible for probably the most vomit inducing PR film ever produced. Once watched, compulsory !..never forgotten.

 

[yorksrob]

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

Indeed. Stopping all our companies and industries being flogged off would be popular with the electorate, but the Establishment seems wedded to the country being a sort of international bargain basement.

 

[tomuk]

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

Your examples may be argued as strategic but neither are successful. In both cases if the plants were more successful they wouldn't be up for sale.

 

[quantinghome]

To answer the original question, no we haven't lost the ability to do large engineering projects.
We do seem to have lost the ability to do them for a reasonable cost though! (Especially in the public sector.)

Is the private sector really any better? Thames Tideway, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow 3rd runway...

 

[tomuk]

Is the private sector really any better? Thames Tideway, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow 3rd runway...

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.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

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.