Comment


There are concerns all across Europe. Just before I was shown


the 3-D design equipment in Uerdingen, I attended a press conference where Volker Kefer, Deutsche Bahn’s board member for technology and infrastructure, appeared alongside Hans-Jörg Grundmann, the head of Siemens’ mobility division. The encounter quickly degenerated into a round of mutual accusation and counter- accusation, given additional heat by an incident a few weeks before. A door had flown off a Siemens-built ICE3 train in a tunnel and hit a train coming in the other direction. Kefer made it clear that all the big suppliers had produced some


problematic trains, including the Bombardier fleet that sparked safety concerns leading to the near-closure of Berlin’s S-Bahn at times last year. Suppliers needed to provide more reliable products, he said. Siemens had an ‘antiquated’ relationship with Deutsche Bahn, Grundmann retorted. It built trains and, as soon as the warranty period expired, it was given little more information about their performance. In the UK, manufacturers routinely maintain new trains – a


practice Siemens and other suppliers would like to spread far more widely within continental Europe. But there remain frustrating problems with many when they first enter service. The continuing difficulties are hardly surprising given how far software-controlled traction systems have advanced train control in just a few years. But it is frustrating, given the nature of the technology, that so little testing seems to be done on simulators before it is installed in operating trains. The temptation in many circles – particularly the Department


for Transport’s rail division – may be to argue for a rejection of the sophisticated European and Japanese manufacturers’ products. A group of civil servants could easily decide to solve the problem of affording new trains by buying them from manufacturers in China, whose low labour and other costs are likely to drive upfront prices well below existing competitors’ levels. A report commissioned for Unife, the European rail industry association, in May warned that Chinese exports were likely to represent substantial extra competition for European suppliers in coming years. However, for the moment at least, less sophisticated trains do


not seem to be the right answer. When the UK finally places new orders, it will be for trains likely to be in service for at least 30 years. It seems highly unlikely that Chinese manufacturers are yet up to the level of sophistication of their western counterparts. Compared with the latest models built in the traditional industrialised countries, their trains are likely to be heavier and more fuel-hungry. Once the established manufacturers’ trains’ teething problems are overcome, they are also likely to be more reliable and more easily maintained than cheaper competitors. Over the trains’ lifetime, the disadvantages could add up to a substantial bill, which the DfT should ensure it takes into account. There are, nevertheless, grounds to extend Grundmann’s call


for a new relationship between supplier and customer to the UK. Ever since the DfT called for a Competition Commission investigation into train leasing companies in 2006, it has allowed hardly any orders for new trains to go through rolling stock leasing companies (Roscos). The refusal to use the Roscos’ real expertise in train ordering is only the latest example of deliberate destruction of expertise in the British rail industry. Tellingly, Roscos typically used to buy standardised products –


such as Siemens’ Desiros or Bombardier’s Electrostars – which have now reached good standards of reliability. The DfT’s civil servants


Be wise when you advertise A4.indd 1 18/9/09 09:58:02 OCTOBER 2010 PAGE 17


‘It seems highly unlikely that Chinese manufacturers are yet up to the level of sophistication of their western counterparts’


have squandered their efforts mainly on the impractical, non- standard InterCity Express programme, which now looks all-but- certain to be cancelled because of its excessive cost. It remains, unfortunately, inevitable that foreign-designed


trains coming to the UK network will need some modification to fit Britain’s lower bridges and narrower tunnels. But there needs to be regular re-examination to see which rules really need to be different in Britain to keep standardisation up and costs down. The established manufacturers should be able to persuade the


British and other European governments that it is worth paying for their quality, reliability and sophistication. But the case will become harder to make the more sophisticated and competitive China’s products become. However clever trainmakers’ latest products, complacency is currently a luxury none of them can afford.


ROBERT WRIGHT IS THE TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL TIMES. HE IS ALSO THE SEAHORSE NEWS JOURNALIST OF THE YEAR 2009: robert.wright@ft.com


n See page 20 for Ian Yeowart’s plans to source Chinese trains for his open access venture


Be wise when you advertise


All too often advertisers accept publisher’s statements on circulation figures. Our ABC Certificate shows we have been independently audited and gives added credibility to support our claim.


So, congratulations... with us, your trust, advertisements and marketing spend are all well placed. For more information on ABC Certificates please contact info@abc.org.uk or visit www.abc.org.uk


Industry agreed measurement www.abc.org.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40