Foreign made trains, trams, and ferries have been in the spotlight lately. Trains have been unable to enter service until modification are made to some lines, trams have been taken out of service due to cracking, and ferries have been unable to operate at night. These failures have been blamed on them being foreign made. The reality is more complicated, and while there is a case for domestic manufacturing, the arguments for this are different to the ones just outlined.
Some historical context
Trains and trams in NSW used to be made in Australia. The Millennium Trains, which entered service during 2002 to 2005, as well as the OSCARS, and entered service during 2006 to 2012, were both manufactured in Newcastle. Meanwhile, the Variotrams, which entered service in 1997, were manufactured in Melbourne.
Overseas sourcing of trains and trams began with the Waratah Trains, which were pre-built in China and assembled in Newcastle. Originally ordered in 2006, entering service in two tranches: the A-Sets from 2011 to 2014 and then the B-Sets from 2020 to 2021, by then Labor Transport Minister Michael Costa. The Private-Public Partnership that built these trains was plagued with financial troubles, particularly due to the impact of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, and required a government bailout to be completed.
This was followed by Spanish built Urbos 3 trams that operate on L1, which entered service in 2014, but were all taken offline in November 2021 for a period of up to 18 months when cracks were found. Spanish and French built Citadis trams that operate on L2/L3, which entered service in 2019, were incompatible with L1 due to platform heights, while Urbos 3 trams cannot operate on George St due to the wire free section. Indian built driverless metro trains, which entered service in 2019, were criticised on opening day for overshooting platforms. Indonesian built ferries, the first of which entered service in 2021, are unable to pass under two bridges while passengers occupy seats on their roof, were found to contain asbestos, and cannot currently operate at night due to reflection issues. Korean built Mariyung trains, which are yet to enter service, required tunnels in the Blue Mountains to be enlarged as they were not large enough for these new trains.
The Labor Opposition has been quick to point out these shortcomings. Their solution: build trains and trams in Australia. This solution was initially rejected by the LNP Government in September 2020, with then Premier Gladys Berejiklian arguing that NSW is “not good at building trains” and then Transport Minister Andrew Constance claiming that buying Australian made would cost 25% more.
But the pressure clearly made an impact, with Constance making a high profile visit that same month to a local manufacturer that produces components such as CCTV cameras and help points for the passenger rail network. More recently, Premier Dominic Perrottet highlighted the importance of manufacturing and announced the creation of a Commissioner for Modern Manufacturing in his Bradfield oration, in which he stated:
“Every economic powerhouse has a strong manufacturing base. NSW cannot just be a service economy. We have to keep making things.”
Is Australian made the solution?
Simply put, domestic manufacturing is not a silver bullet to the issues raised earlier. Most of those issues are not caused by location of manufacture but rather due to design issues. The Mariyung trains were not “too big for the tunnels” because they were imported, they were designed that way so as to reduce the gap between train and platform. The ferries were not too tall for the bridges, they were designed that way as there is little demand for ferries towards Parramatta and so the roof seating can be easily closed.
It’s also worth remembering that the Millennium Trains, the last set of trains manufactured domestically for Sydney Trains, were plagued with issues. Not only were they delayed, arriving long after the turn of the Millennium for which they were named, but they could not operate on every line due to their high usage of electricity overwhelming the power generated at the time.
Melbourne manufactures its own trains and trams, but often using the specifications provided by the overseas based firm that designed it. In a parallel universe where these trams were manufactured in Australia it is quite possible that these same cracks would have emerged.
So should we forget about Australian made?
Domestic manufacturing of trains and trams has its merits. Principally it creates more ongoing domestic jobs if, and only if, there is an ongoing pipeline for new rolling stock. If there isn’t, then any factory would shut down as soon as a project wraps up.
Maintaining constant production is easier with scale. Buses are manufactured in NSW because there is a large fleet of buses that is constantly being replaced. Trams are manufactured in Victoria where they have a large tram network, also providing for that scale.
For Australia, the most viable option available is coordination between the states. This could provide a consistent pipeline of manufacturing and ideally would be led by the Federal Government through the National Cabinet process.
It may well happen.
But what needs to end is the idea that this would stop all the design specification issues that have so often hit the headlines. Domestic manufacturing does not address this.
Transport Sydney 
As you say taking control of the design process is the important part. Most of the savings claimed by the Government was due to the acceptance of off the shelf designs rather than designing for the local system. Politics rather than economics have guided the buying decisions in NSW recently.
I’m not sure I agree with your comment on scale as NSW is the only state buying overseas in any quantity. Queensland and WA have their trains built in Australia.
Welcome back. It’s a long time since we’ve heard from you. I agree with @Jim that local design issues don’t always equate with off the shelf designs from overseas and compromises have to be made, which otherwise could be avoided if manufactured locally, having regard to past experience. The alleged savings in cost with overseas procurement are proving to be illusory.
The greatest failing of the Sydney Light Rail procurement and in fact the whole design of the system, was to ignore any input from Melbourne, which has one of the largest tram networks in the World. State rivalries have got in the way of objective analysis. The approach is, “we’ll do it our way”.
Trams for the Sydney network could have been manufactured in Melbourne and with swiveling bogies, which would have avoided the cracking issues on the Spanish built CAF fixed bogie trams. It’s also incomprehensible that incompatible trams are ordered for each light rail line. Imagine how this would have played out on Sydney’s original tram network.
The issue of early manufacturing faults of the Waratah fleet in China could also have been avoided if manufactured locally, which was quite feasible in Newcastle where they were eventually assembled. If it was not for the intervention of the State government, this PPP project would have gone bust.
The design of the new intercity fleet (D sets), manufactured in South Korea, is another case in point. You would have thought that the government would have sorted out the issues of potential Driver Only Operation (DOO), without guards, before the contract was even committed to, instead of leaving it to the 11th hour, which is now holding up its introduction to services.
Although in fairness, the supposed claim that the D sets won’t fit through the tunnels or stations on the Western Line beyond Springwood is a bit of a furphy, as it has always been the intention that the Western Line would be upgraded for the wider rolling stock similar to the modifications which were carried out on the Northern and South Coast Lines. It is desirable to have a common intercity fleet which can operate on all lines. I’m surprised that the government has never countered this fact.
Agree with Ray and all good infos – just on Rays’ Melbourne point, any idea if any of the newer tram models in Melbourne are compatible with the L1, any of the C, D or E classes? The incompatibility of the different L1 & L2/L3 lines from one another due to some percieved heritage impact requiring battery operation through Town Hall/QVB/CQ is in my opinion absolutely insane – the heritage value of having trams back in the city after 50 years far outweighs any minor visual impact, and introduces a massive potential source of problems down the track. Also means we can never run heritage trams down George St in that case.
I’m no expert and I don’t know a lot about compatibility of any Melbourne trams with Sydney’s systems, but as Bambul pointed out, the original Variotrams used on L1 were manufactured in Melbourne and presumably were similar in design to its Melbourne equivalent. I understand that because they have swivelling bogies, which generate less stress on track and car bodies on tight radius turns, they have higher level floors than the fixed bogie trams. The Urbos 3 trams that replaced them are probably similar, but have fixed bogies. This may be the main reason for any incompatibility.
I recently read on another site, that there are some Variotrams still in storage waiting to be sold. It’s also been reported today that TfNSW is trialling the L2/L3 Citadis trams on L1. Incompatible platform height seems to be the main issue, but I don’t know if there are any others, apart from the Citadis fleet being longer with coupled sets, which could obviously be separated. If the trials prove to be successful, with some temporary modifications, it may potentially be possible to split some of the CItadis double sets to allow them to operate on L1, while maintaining a reasonable level of service on L2/L3.
The unwired sections on George St are not battery operated, but with third rail, which I seem to recall was somewhat of an experiment when first proposed. The trams still have a limited battery capacity to enable them to clear intersections in the event of the power supply failing. I’m not aware of whether there have been any major issues with this mode of operation, but perhaps someone can enlighten us. The Newcastle trams do operate on batteries, while charging at stops along the route, being as short as it is.
I agree that it is a shame that no thought was given to wiring the whole of George St to enable operation of heritage trams from the NSW Tramway Museum as a major tourist attraction, not only for interstate and overseas tourists, but also for locals, similar to Melbourne’s City Loop. It could run from Circular Quay to Central and back. They could even install replicas of the original heritage wire poles from Bathurst St to Market St past the Sydney Town Hall and QVB, which wouldn’t be out of place with their heritage values. It’s something which could still be done. It may require some modification to the heritage trams by replacing the traditional tram poles with modern pantographs, as they did in Melbourne, but that would be a small price to pay.
Another missed opportunity because of Sydney’s incompatible light rail network, is the long mooted loop from L1 at Haymarket to George St in the Rocks, linking with L2/L3 at Circular Quay, via Darling Harbour along Hickson Rd. This would also service many tourist destinations along the route including the Sydney Theatre Company district and the Rocks. It would also provide an interchange with the Sydney Metro station at Barangaroo.
Just getting back to the issue of local manufacturing, the NSW Endeavour and Explorer DMU regional train fleets were also manufactured in Melbourne, based on the the Vlocity design.
I also thought that NSW Trains had to widen the Blue Mountain tunnels beyond Springwood anyway at some point as some of the newer trains we’ve already had aren’t allowed beyond there and this has been the case with past carriages. Although I didn’t know Northern and South Coast Lines had similar cases. As far as this is concerned, it’s looks more like the Opposition overdramatizing the supposed nontroversy when it was just the final stage of a long drawn-out work in standardization for the Intercity Network’s rail gauge and rollingstock, instead of State Transport mixing up the spec. Like Ray said, I’m a bit surprised the Government didn’t bring this up.