Our industry needs access to EU single market
Royston Edwards’ perception of the “facts” about the EU are very different from mine, based on my experience of negotiations on motor vehicle technical standards over 20 years (Letters, PE May).
Whilst it is true that the European Commission is unelected, this body only has the role of submitting proposals to the member states and the European parliament who then have the right to accept, amend or reject those proposals. No regulations can come into force without the agreement of the parliament and the member states. This is done by qualified majority voting so is fully democratic. The UK being one of the big four has the same number of votes as Germany, France and Italy.
In my experience the commission is unlikely to propose anything which it knows will not have the support of at least several member states, including at least two of the big four, and it certainly took much notice of the views of the UK delegation which I led. This was because it had great respect for the UK’s research-based technical expertise on vehicle safety and emissions.
It is vital that UK industry continues to have full and free access to the EU single market which constitutes nearly 50% of its exports. If we left the EU that free access would almost certainly be compromised and in any case we would completely lose our influence over regulatory standards. The result of this would be the decline of our manufacturing industries, therefore loss of revenue and jobs on quite a large scale.
There are other issues such as immigration on which I am less well qualified to comment but, living in an area with many immigrants from Eastern Europe, I can say that my experience of them has been wholly positive. They are usually competent and polite, often more so than some indigenous Brits!
The numbers of immigrants need to be controlled but I believe the UK government has the scope to do that while remaining a member of the EU.
John Jeyes, Selsey, West Sussex
Immigrants boost economy
Royston Edwards is entitled to his personal views regarding the UK’s membership of the EU (Letters, PE May). However, to entitle these as “Facts of life in the EU” is misleading.
For example, he states that what concerns most people is population growth. This is opinion, rather than fact. Personally I think that the majority of people in this country are primarily interested in the impact of the EU on their jobs and prosperity.
I believe the economic evidence shows that immigration delivers an overall positive contribution to our national well-being, and has helped our economy grow and develop. Despite scare stories of immigrants stealing British jobs and driving down wages, the reality is the opposite – we have declining unemployment (despite emerging from a global recession), and minimum wages are increasing.
In terms of services and infrastructure, I suspect the impact of government spending cuts massively outweighs the effect of population growth, and in many cases it is immigrants from the EU who are helping to prop up some of our key national institutions.
The same issue of PE contains a News article stating that “Brexit could exacerbate skills gap,” quoting the views of a consortium of our largest engineering firms. This reinforces the view that overall EU membership is beneficial for British industry and hence jobs and prosperity.
Finally, Edwards states that the EU has failed year after year to get its accounts approved by the auditors. This is factually incorrect. The EU accounts are scrutinised by the Court of Auditors and were signed off in 2015 for accounts in 2014, as they have been every year since 2007.
John Morgan, Runcorn, Cheshire
Smart move for suppliers
Your article “More heat than light” gave a balanced view of the benefits of smart meters (PE May). I suspect that in reality for domestic consumers all the benefit will be to the energy suppliers.
I do not believe that having smart meter displays will change consumption patterns significantly under the current charging regimes. For the suppliers, however, they will reduce their labour costs for meter readings significantly and pass the £11 billion bill to the consumers.
This may change if tariffs are linked to available generating capacity but I still doubt whether consumers will check their meters before switching on the TV.
Peter Finch, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Money talks
One way to get people more interested in smart meters would be to display the usage in pounds (“More heat than light,” PE May).
I have no idea what a kilowatt-hour looks or feels like, but I do know what a pound looks like!
Andrew Whitehouse, Sale, Manchester
Hands-on learning
I read your Editor’s comment with interest (PE May). Whilst some of us can only aspire to creative positions, the potential for creativity remains one of engineering’s main attractions.
However, creativity results from thinking about relationships, and this requires sound understanding – something that rarely features in rushed syllabuses and exam cramming. Indeed, understanding should be regarded as a hobby, to be practised outside the confines of education.
There is no quick fix to enthusing young people about engineering. Stem initiatives are very good but also suffer education’s limitations of syllabuses, timetables and (dare I say it) ‘outcomes’. From my own experience, there is also the constant pressure to make things ‘fun’ so that children will at least go home happy (or ‘positive’) in their ignorance.
As we know, the greatest (and happiest) practitioners of any art are those whose interest lies in the subject matter. To engender such an interest in engineering, we need to allow young people opportunities for constructing, contemplating and manipulating things, in their own time, and without the modern interferences of adults and electronic devices.
Bring back Meccano, Airfix, Lego, cereal boxes, toilet rolls, string and Sellotape!
Nick Marsh, Rugby, Warwickshire
Strategic value of steel
Is steel worth saving and should the taxpayer’s money be used to shore it up? My answer is most certainly yes on both counts and here’s why.
The jobs and the communities attached to this product are hugely important and must be preserved, and in this industry, not in the service industry. But the most important reason for saving steel is that, to a technical nation like ours, indigenous, UK-owned and funded, efficient, renewable-energy-driven steel manufacture is an absolutely essential strategic asset in the same category as power generation and transport.
Without the ability to make our own steel and unique special steels this nation could be in very serious trouble in a defence emergency. The manufacture and repair of ships, aircraft, defence equipment and national infrastructure could be greatly impaired if the UK was on the end of a geographically long import chain.
Such strategic assets must not be subject to market forces but must be protected in the interests of the nation, preferably via a professionally managed and technically competent Ministry of Strategic Assets holding a significant stake in each case.
To say that we should let it go and that it is cheaper to buy steel imported from China for such projects rather that from our own long-standing, highly competent and internationally respected steel industry reflects a national insanity that sees the price of everything and the value of nothing.
We have the facilities, the qualified, competent staff and the most advanced steel manufacturing knowledge in the world, so, in the name of common sense and security, let’s protect it and use it. Apply the necessary tariffs, energy price easing and other measures to allow our steel to compete on a level playing field.
If the Brussels community objects, remind them, forcefully but diplomatically, that both France and Germany protect their strategic assets when the need arises, regardless of stifling European Union regulations and bureaucracy!
Richard F H Young, Manchester
Credit where it’s due
Might I be allowed to give a little support for the London and North Eastern Railway’s Sir Nigel Gresley, despite being a London Midland Region man myself!
Your correspondent Francis Brian Cowell considers that Gresley’s conjugated valve gear was not practical mechanically (Letters, PE May). While it was by no means perfect – what mechanical systems are? – it was nonetheless fitted to 800 locomotives Gresley was responsible for. A significant number of them lasted well in excess of 30 years and some approached 40.
It was also used on locomotives that had nothing to do with Gresley, apart I guess from royalty payments, in Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and even the US; these countries come immediately to mind, but there were others.
Gresley had his initial training at Crewe under Francis Webb. Sir John Aspinall, incidentally, also trained at Crewe, under John Ramsbottom. The Aspinall Atlantics were not an unqualified success when first introduced. In efforts to improve their riding characteristics, the swing link bogies had to be replaced with ones of sliding design and the trailing wheels had to be modified with outside rather than inside bearings.
There were also problems with the cylinder valves and the steam reverser, which, by the way, was positioned under the driver’s seat, making for rather an uncomfortable ride. It was later replaced by a conventional hand-operated screw.
While one cannot argue the issue that some of these engines had for the first time in this country a means of increasing the steam temperature, the arrangement could hardly be called a superheater in the accepted sense. More like a steam dryer as apparently it only raised the temperature by 95°F and then only after 15 minutes’ hard running. As the boiler pressure was 175lb, the steam temperature after passing through the steam dryer would have been 472°F; hardly superheat!
I have not wanted to denigrate Aspinall, a one-time president of this institution, nor to overly champion Sir Nigel, another past president, but we have to accept that the understanding of mechanical engineering improved enormously between Aspinall’s day, around the turn of the 20th century, and what Gresley was achieving in the 1930s.
I would argue that Gresley did eclipse his master and, from what I have read of Aspinall, I feel sure he would have approved. What father would belittle his son for going on to greater achievements? Mine certainly did not.
Allan C Baker, High Halden, Kent
That sinking feeling
Shale gas is a fossil fuel, and is therefore found in the same regions of our country where coal was mined intensively for more than a century.
Can anyone reassure me that frequent minor seismic disturbances beneath our labyrinth of 4ft high voids held up by rotting wooden pit props will not cause widespread subsidence damage to buildings and infrastructure?
Robert Leese, Derby
Planning manipulated
My letter “End of the line,” asserting that the railway planning process is subject to manipulation, has roused neither passions nor challenges (PE April). I conclude therefore that manipulation is normal!
I thought that good governance, British justice and our sense of fair play was just waiting to be stirred. Previously I had placed hope in the Parliamentary Ombudsman getting to the truth. My MP, Richard Harrington, submitted the 60-page submission. The ombudsman decided in his letter of July 2015 to carry out a formal inquiry with the following terms of reference: “Michael Fish complains that the Department for Transport has not acted appropriately or in line with relevant guidelines with regards to Croxley Rail Link and the closure of Watford Metropolitan Station.
“He says public inquiries have been manipulated and the department has not been open and transparent. Mr Fish says that as a result the public has been misled and seeks recognition of errors and appropriate recommendations.”
All these fine words and promises of a formal inquiry produced nothing of substance.
The root cause of the manipulation of process, I believe, is the lack of competence of the people involved, coupled with everything being judged on today’s costs. Never mind the quality, feel the width! No one is responsible or accountable.
The Croxley Rail Link, now known as the Metropolitan Line Extension, with its two public inquiries, shows how the planning process can as a matter of policy be manipulated. The actions are acceptable to the ombudsman.
Where do we go from here?
Michael Fish, Watford
Email your views to pe@caspianmedia.com or write to PE, Unit G4, Harbour Yard, Chelsea Harbour, London SW10 0XD. Please include your name and address