• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team
  • HI folks the server that hosts the site completely died including the Hdd's and backups.
    Luckily i create an offsite backup once a week! this has now been restored so we have lost a few days posts.
    im still fixing things at the moment so bear with me and im still working on all images 90% are fine the others im working on now
    we are now using a backup solution

Train Building in the UK

Heartland

Heartland

master brummie
There was a time when both the railway companies and private companies built rolling stock and locomotives. Railway companies as British Rail ceased that task when British Railway Engineering was wound up. A few rolling stock builders remained and there was hope that the Newton Aylcliffe facility may a long term future, but with IEP production ending for the moment, staff are being laid off. But have standards dropped, the recent damage to a GWR train at Dawlish may not have happened of the glass was if a standard for that line. This decline happened with the Thatcher Government. It was on those times that the template for privatisation was created with the removal of Sealink, BREL and the hotels.
 
The UK has just followed the same pattern as all other early adopters of railways, private builders, railway company builders, international builders.

It is inevitable that as rail vehicles become more complex and railway requirements more standardised that there will be fewer companies involved in making them. The UK certainly isn't unique in seeing a steady reduction in manufacturing capacity. The UK market just isn't big enough to sustain a UK-only manufacturer and the same is true for the whole of Europe. The surviving companies have 'gone global', merged with competitors, and picked up local subsidies for assembly lines that inevitably will only be sustainable for a short time.
 
That is a good point made, but I believe politics have been a contributory factor. In this country we did have some world leading companies who were at the forefront of railway engineering. British Railways continued that trend, as did some independent makers. Had more political support been given things might have been different. The skill ans ingenuity that produced the APT needed to have been proceeded with, but tilting train technology went elsewhere. The High Speed train was meant to be a stop gap to trains like the APT, but proved to be a remarkable example of British engineering, so much so that some units are still at work. Those on LNER ceased running last December, but their replacements may not have the same tenure. Their initial use was marred by signalling issues, which suggests a poorer standard of design.

Decline in manufacture came about through a number of reasons. Yet having the Commonwealth, there should have been a continued market, but that market was lost to others in different parts of the globe. In the EU, firms have been maintained and indeed supported, it seems. The trend to move manufacturing from this country to other parts of Europe may have suited those in the EU, and may be led to improvements in technology there. But in this country we are careful innovators, and that is the sad result of the process, that such skills are not used.

We retain a manufacturer on Derby and have the new plant in the North East, alluded to previously, (as well as Clayton Equipment for industrial locomotives), but much of modern rolling stock comes from the EU with Freight Locomotives made in America. Key to this state of affairs, is our lack of manufacturing here.
 
I am not so sure that the UK was well-placed to supply the world. Because we were first our railways developed from horse-drawn waggon ways and carriages and that was a big factor in determing our loading guage which still limits what we can do on existing railways.

The Empire meant that initially British equipment and practice found its place around the world but don't forget that the Empire didn't give up its riches for free, someone had to pay for the railway, in the beginning that would be the UK. As the Empire became the Commonwealth the now independent countries either look to built locally or to seek equipment better matched to their needs. US practice must surely suit much of Canada, Australia or India better, especially outside of the large population centres.

Also we didn't exactly help ourselves, British Railways inherited the different ways of 'the big four' and didn't standardise enough, (perhaps because of lack of money, perhaps to avoid upsetting the workforce?). Post World War 2 the nations of continental Europe had the desire to move towards inter-working. That led to common standards, which in turn produces a bigger market ultimately dominated by fewer but bigger suppliers. Until the Chunnel inter-working between countries was never a concern for the UK, except for limited waggon traffic. (With the rise of containerisation was that considered important? BR didn't have to 'lose' a vehicle on a run from Manchester to Milan if the customer's container could easily be transhipped).

Don't forget that big organisation aren't as single-minded as many outsiders seem to think. BR's APT was a product of new thinking, the smart youngsters ftom the universities and people with solid aerospace experience set inside a world literally with a cast-iron culture. (My father, with an aircraft and car manufacturing background, observed that no airline pilot would put his feet up on the dashboard or tip the contents of his 'billy can' out over his aircraft's nose, and that explains why a diesel loco 'needs' and armour plate glass cover to its dashoard and a 747 doesn't). Meanwhile there were the existing staff of the CM&EE department developing the HST. Which was the right approach? The APT appeared to fail but the principle was imported with the Pendolino. HST is still with us, (just), and the design even made it to Australia!

There are no easy answers I am afraid. Looking to politics is unlikely to be the answer though, nobody is in the job long enough. A sucessful engineering sector really needs a culture for success and our politicians and broadcast media all too often work against that.
 
Spargone said:
I am not so sure that the UK was well-placed to supply the world. Because we were first our railways developed from horse-drawn waggon ways and carriages and that was a big factor in determing our loading guage which still limits what we can do on existing railways.

The Empire meant that initially British equipment and practice found its place around the world but don't forget that the Empire didn't give up its riches for free, someone had to pay for the railway, in the beginning that would be the UK. As the Empire became the Commonwealth the now independent countries either look to built locally or to seek equipment better matched to their needs. US practice must surely suit much of Canada, Australia or India better, especially outside of the large population centres.

Also we didn't exactly help ourselves, British Railways inherited the different ways of 'the big four' and didn't standardise enough, (perhaps because of lack of money, perhaps to avoid upsetting the workforce?). Post World War 2 the nations of continental Europe had the desire to move towards inter-working. That led to common standards, which in turn produces a bigger market ultimately dominated by fewer but bigger suppliers. Until the Chunnel inter-working between countries was never a concern for the UK, except for limited waggon traffic. (With the rise of containerisation was that considered important? BR didn't have to 'lose' a vehicle on a run from Manchester to Milan if the customer's container could easily be transhipped).

Don't forget that big organisation aren't as single-minded as many outsiders seem to think. BR's APT was a product of new thinking, the smart youngsters ftom the universities and people with solid aerospace experience set inside a world literally with a cast-iron culture. (My father, with an aircraft and car manufacturing background, observed that no airline pilot would put his feet up on the dashboard or tip the contents of his 'billy can' out over his aircraft's nose, and that explains why a diesel loco 'needs' and armour plate glass cover to its dashoard and a 747 doesn't). Meanwhile there were the existing staff of the CM&EE department developing the HST. Which was the right approach? The APT appeared to fail but the principle was imported with the Pendolino. HST is still with us, (just), and the design even made it to Australia!

There are no easy answers I am afraid. Looking to politics is unlikely to be the answer though, nobody is in the job long enough. A sucessful engineering sector really needs a culture for success and our politicians and broadcast media all too often work against that.
Click to expand...
A sucessful engineering sector really needs a culture for success and our politicians and broadcast media all too often work against that.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
 
I think that if metro camel were still around they would have played a vital roll in getting the hs2 trains and reolling stock running up to super standard than other firms from other countries
 
One fundamental difference between the UK and much of mainland Europe's railways after WW2 was that the UK's was worn out and repaired slowly. Europe, on the other hand, had to replace a large parts of their important and vital infrastructure due to its wartime destruction.
One thing that present day construction of railways is burdened with - consequently pushing up the price quite dramatically - is legislation and red tape. The hardest part of early railway development was getting the land - often with penalties such as cutting or tunnels where landed gentry lived. But HS2 has a multitude of legalities before the first sod is even cut. Most of us here probably do not concern ourselves with fast travel, but today's younger generations do - for the most part. HS2 is a plan for a dedicated line well into the next (22nd.) century consequently it will - or should have if built - some fundamental differences to present day lines, which, due to the rapid passenger number increases in recent years, is at many times, overcrowded often with standing room only.
Anyone who has stood on a bus from the city for a few miles of their journey might appreciate how those standing for far longer periods on a train feel. It will be a hard decision about the future, I m sure, but if the plan is to cut down on air and car travel in the next decade or so, then trains, presumably, are a good option.
 
Hi

I've never forgotten a train journey from Euston to Birmingham about
60years ago and standing all the way!.

On the other hand it was usual to be standing on a daily commute between
Stechford and New Street, but that was less than 10 minutes rather than
2 1/2 hours!

Kind regards
Dave
 
Alan.
while I am in full agreement with you that in modern rail travel there should be ample seating, I am not convinced that this will happen. there have been a number of adverse comments in the south about some of the new trains being introduced on the services into, I think, Waterloo, where the proportion of space for seated to standing passengers provided was deliberately been reduced. this was on trains where journeys can last an hour
 
How can Britain compete with Japan,when there wages are so low and their overheads as well.They pay their workers half our wages and they think it's great.This country is ruled by profit at all costs.
 
Waterloo, as many will know. is the largest and busiest of all UK railway stations. It has been the subject of a long running dispute which certainly has not improved passenger requirements. So many people commute to work over much greater distances today than previously. In my younger days a ten mile or more journey was unusual. Despite the Transport for London extensions to their train and bus network the attractions and employment in the city has its attractions from a wide area of many parts of England.
1579531313428.pngA 2017 map courtesy of Daily Telegraph.

It can be seen that SE and central England has a 2 hour journey, even most of England is, apparently, only 4 hours away.
I do believe that our rail system and the NHS for that matter is often an Aunt Sally.
 
One the problems with South West trains, like other franchise holders is the matter of guards. Getting rid of the guard/train manager in a operational role is a means to save money and increase profits for the shareholders. There was a belief that Franchising would increase investment. Yet as soon as the costs rise, the franchise is handed back.

It will of interest to see how much investment is made in Aviva, especially as the court case has begun today where previous franchise holders disqualified from running HS2, take this disqualification further to see if the ruling can be overturned.
 
I thought they were trying to con money out of the government, rather than get the ruling overturned
 
The court case proceeded yesterday, but the German Railways withdrawing their claim

BBC news said

Stagecoach's legal action is backed by its bid partners, Virgin and French state-owned operator SNCF.

Opening the case for Stagecoach and its partners, Jason Coppel QC said the rail franchise system and the railway pension scheme were both "in crisis".

He added that the procurement process was "shrouded in secrecy" and said there had been "a long series of mistakes and missteps which result in the unlawful disqualification decisions that we challenge".

A similar but separate case brought by Arriva, owned by Deutsche Bahn, had also been filed with the court.

However, at Monday's hearing, the court heard that Arriva had reached a confidential settlement with the DfT over its disqualification from bidding for the East Midlands franchise and had withdrawn its claim.

South West trains is also in the news as Grant Shapps has declared that franchise unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
Wolseley made a contribution to the production of this early mono rail carriage. Viv.

A0C83B13-7D2B-4004-8D82-257263507A7E.jpeg
 
Vivienne14 said:
Wolseley made a contribution to the production of this early mono rail carriage. Viv.

View attachment 144249
Click to expand...
Yes, Wolseley only supplied a 20hp and a 80hp engine for Brennan's rail car, with the flywheels running in a vacuum and, unlike the Russian designed Gyrocar made entirely by Wolseley, the Brennan rail car could go round corners without falling over; a problem with the Gyrocar which could have been cured by using contra-rotating flywheels.
The Gyrocar is covered in detail in my book "Wolseley Special Products" and also covers Wolseley's industrial locomotives and rail-car engines of 80hp and 140hp.
Boomy
 
Spargone said:
I am not so sure that the UK was well-placed to supply the world. Because we were first our railways developed from horse-drawn waggon ways and carriages and that was a big factor in determing our loading guage which still limits what we can do on existing railways.

The Empire meant that initially British equipment and practice found its place around the world but don't forget that the Empire didn't give up its riches for free, someone had to pay for the railway, in the beginning that would be the UK. As the Empire became the Commonwealth the now independent countries either look to built locally or to seek equipment better matched to their needs. US practice must surely suit much of Canada, Australia or India better, especially outside of the large population centres.

Also we didn't exactly help ourselves, British Railways inherited the different ways of 'the big four' and didn't standardise enough, (perhaps because of lack of money, perhaps to avoid upsetting the workforce?). Post World War 2 the nations of continental Europe had the desire to move towards inter-working. That led to common standards, which in turn produces a bigger market ultimately dominated by fewer but bigger suppliers. Until the Chunnel inter-working between countries was never a concern for the UK, except for limited waggon traffic. (With the rise of containerisation was that considered important? BR didn't have to 'lose' a vehicle on a run from Manchester to Milan if the customer's container could easily be transhipped).

Don't forget that big organisation aren't as single-minded as many outsiders seem to think. BR's APT was a product of new thinking, the smart youngsters ftom the universities and people with solid aerospace experience set inside a world literally with a cast-iron culture. (My father, with an aircraft and car manufacturing background, observed that no airline pilot would put his feet up on the dashboard or tip the contents of his 'billy can' out over his aircraft's nose, and that explains why a diesel loco 'needs' and armour plate glass cover to its dashoard and a 747 doesn't). Meanwhile there were the existing staff of the CM&EE department developing the HST. Which was the right approach? The APT appeared to fail but the principle was imported with the Pendolino. HST is still with us, (just), and the design even made it to Australia!

There are no easy answers I am afraid. Looking to politics is unlikely to be the answer though, nobody is in the job long enough. A sucessful engineering sector really needs a culture for success and our politicians and broadcast media all too often work against that.
Click to expand...
Very well said!
 
Radiorails said:
Waterloo, as many will know. is the largest and busiest of all UK railway stations. It has been the subject of a long running dispute which certainly has not improved passenger requirements. So many people commute to work over much greater distances today than previously. In my younger days a ten mile or more journey was unusual. Despite the Transport for London extensions to their train and bus network the attractions and employment in the city has its attractions from a wide area of many parts of England.
View attachment 140791A 2017 map courtesy of Daily Telegraph.

It can be seen that SE and central England has a 2 hour journey, even most of England is, apparently, only 4 hours away.
I do believe that our rail system and the NHS for that matter is often an Aunt Sally.
Click to expand...
4 hrs 19 min to bangor from london. .....6 hrs pwllheli to bham new st.
 
I think Norman Painting the actor who played Phil Archer died about 10 years ago, but the author of the Birmingham company history books must still be alive and kicking!
PA739
 
There is a foreword in one of David Harvey's tram books by Norman Painting. He was the son of a signaIman so in addition to acting and his Anglo Saxon interests he may have had a transport one as well.
 
That was an interesting discussion, thanks.

Do you all look forward to a rail revival at one metre separation, (not the rails!) or are we going to re-introduce the open topped carriage for mass transportation in order to blow away the viruses?

I had some dealings at sub sub contractor level with railway equipment, since we had a piece of production kit that would have comfortably met a particular requirement, and were supplying the aircraft industry with large machined parts at the time. It seemed that while we could supply bits for aircraft, the requirements of the railways were beyond us, mainly because it proved impossible to meet the price they wanted to pay at the volumes they wanted to buy.
 
I don't believe open carriages, at heritage line speeds (25 mph. max) are any safer than enclosed carriages - maybe even less so due to the movement of air.
I won't be among their passengers, open or enclosed, for sure.
 
With Thomas, regulator wide open, showering the train with white hot cinders.

“In case of fire, please inform any ember of the staff.”

Being serious for a minute, if the cost of railway tickets bears any relationship to the number of passenger/miles offered and trains can only be loaded to, say, 25% occupation what will that do for the railways’ profitability? How do you stop a platform full of folks climbing into a train which is already fully occupied according to covid rules when there are, apparently, seats available? There will have to be some sort of ticket only system, which is OK on a City to City service, but how to deal with commuters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top