Inequality drives woman to leave the profession
As a female mechanical engineer with 25 years’ industrial experience, I applaud the intent of your article “Culture change” (PE December) but believe that it is skirting (excuse the pun) around the diversity issues with no clear plan for progress. The naked calendars may be gone from the workplace but the testosterone isn’t.
The female percentage on my university course was 10%, so the current statistic of 15% doesn’t appear to show any real progress in nearly a quarter of a century.
I have worked for blue-chip companies. In nearly all cases my annual reviews have shown that I outperform most of my male peers in technical skills and core competencies. Yet in every case I’ve worked twice as hard to find myself fighting to stand still, let alone even attempting to climb the career ladder.
Repeated knock-backs and inequality led me to total loss of confidence. And now the battle starts again. A new (male) engineer with less than half the experience than myself has been instated to “oversee” my work.
I’ve tried to make change, have run out of energy and will be looking to move outside of engineering. It’s time for the next generation to take up the fight.
I’ve given up counting the number of people that I’ve told I’m a mechanical engineer and their response is to ask me to fix their car.
Anonymous
Call a halt to rail dispute
A long-running dispute between unions and a train operating company concerns, we are told, the safety of rail operations in the absence of a conductor or guard. A major network in the south of England is being brought to a halt over this disagreement. The government is standing by apparently impotent.
The Office of Rail and Road, in its own words “holds the railway industry to account”. It is “the national safety authority for Britain’s railways”.
Doesn’t this body have a view on crewing requirements for safe train operation? Cannot the government enquire as to this view? On learning of this view, cannot the government require that the warring bodies observe it and bring this damaging stalemate to an end?
Who governs Britain?
Michael Benoy, Cranleigh, Surrey
Gains and losses
In defence of Paul Spare’s letter, “On the up and up” (PE November), and in response to Neil Cooper’s letter “A matter of interpretation” (PE December), marginal gains in fuel efficiency do little to compensate for expanded consumption. In technically naive eyes such marginal gains may actually promote the purchase of profligate machinery, in the mistaken belief that it is therefore no worse for the environment than older kit.
Ironically, the Department for Transport’s latest crash statistics prove this point – a 3% increase in deaths and serious injuries from 2015 to 2016. The number of deaths per accident is increasing even though the number of accidents is falling.
The reason is kinetic energy – the cause is the ability, not the necessity, to drive faster than is safe on existing roads.
Total fuel burn per year is the true measure of environmental damage, not whether it ends as hydrocarbons, carbon, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. Any reference to gross domestic product in this context is simply a deflection from the logic – and the point.
G D Johnston
Turn the tide for energy
The sun’s radiation onto the earth’s land surfaces is enough to supply mankind’s energy needs many times over. It’s not only the sun, though! Tides are created by the moon’s gravitational pull, so what of tidal power?
Britain is one of the places to benefit most by tidal movement and, unlike wind and solar power, this has long-term predictability. The Carbon Trust estimates that a global tidal energy market worth £126 billion could be developed by 2050. Britain is well placed to be a world leader in this technology which would ensure the well-being and wealth of future generations.
Whether the energy comes from the sun or moon, it is not always predictable and constant. Huge fluctuation in generation will produce excesses and shortages unless the surplus can be stored. Storage then becomes as vital as production.
We must convince the population as a whole that renewable energy can be harnessed, for our own benefit and for future generations. Then if government does not respond by giving renewables and storage its full support we shall lose the advantage equivalent to Britain’s lead with steam in the Industrial Revolution.This next phase in our world-leading role will be remembered as the Great British Renewables Revolution.
Government must not fail us now. Put your faith in British engineering and support all our effort in wind, wave, tidal and direct solar renewable energy. You will never regret it and will be remembered as the government that made the renewables revolution happen.
Alan W Watson, Worcester Park, Surrey
Politicians’ ego trip
I can’t help but wonder about the usefulness of High Speed 2. Its supporters claim that it will benefit the economy. But I find it hard to believe that, of all the functions that keep industry ticking, just making an improvement in one small component, people transport, HS2 will be cost effective and make a big difference.
There are so many other areas that are in greater need of investment, such as energy cost reduction, simplified legislation, full countrywide broadband, better roads, overhaul of town and country planning, and tax simplification. If all that money is available, why not spend it to much better effect?
If more railway capacity is needed, it would be better to build a more conventional railway, taking only slightly more journey time between London and northern cities than HS2.
A conventional railway could carry freight. And for the same money it may well be possible to link more distant destinations such as Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle and Glasgow into the Northern Powerhouse.
I know that from an efficiency and cost angle road transport wins hands down. But we have more congestion on the roads, resulting in logistics with timed deliveries becoming very difficult, forcing drivers to leave extra early, with longer journey times and more costs.
On the other hand, rail and signal technology is improving all the time and electric railways enjoy more stable fuel cost. Even a small percentage of freight taken off the roads would be welcome.
Another way would be to build more motorways. It has merit, especially if electric technology, advancing fast in cars, can be applied to trucks running at higher weights. Road trains in Australia are effective and new motorways could work well here.
I live not far from the M6 and notice that traffic is almost like a road train anyway, except there’s a driver for every 20 or so tonnes of freight. How inefficient is that?
How about some of the money saved in quitting the EU being spent on research into battery technology?
HS2 seems to me like a politicians’ ego trip; sounds good, costs a bomb but has little verifiable value.
John Halstead, Cranage, Cheshire
The wrong image
I agree with the views of Bob Lindsey about Bloodhound (Letters, PE December).
Bloodhound may be a great project, but the IMechE needs to portray a more holistic image of engineering. We risk labelling ourselves as merely motor heads. We should champion engineering in all its diversity. There are many iconic projects that improve people’s lives, be it high-speed rail, the new Forth crossing, or sustainable energy, to name a few.
Apart from anything else, we must be more inclusive. There are those who might argue that motoring appeals to a predominantly male audience. We must attempt to reach out to everyone.
Charles Briggs, Glasgow
Rocket to nowhere
Bob Lindsey is not alone in considering Bloodhound to be an inappropriate project to promote the profession.
Whilst the problems involved in keeping a rocket in touch with the ground at speeds the wrong side of Mach 1 are significant, I fail to see its relevance to the challenges faced by humanity!
Mike Croker, Bramber, Sussex
Bloodhound inspires kids
I am left wondering what reservations Bob Lindsey has regarding the Bloodhound SSC project. He states that he has several but doesn’t tell us what they are. He suggests there are better projects, with useful social outcomes and fewer hazards, to promote the profession, again without providing an example.
As a StemNet and Bloodhound Ambassador, I have attended Bloodhound SSC school days and have always been pleased that most students show a keen interest in the project.
Bloodhound takes technology as far as it can go. The computational fluid dynamics investigation is at the limit of current capabilities, and the wheels are also pushing the limits of materials and design. It is a hazardous exercise that has required an intense design effort to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
I cannot think of any other project that makes so much advanced technical information freely available.
Robin Trow, Snodland, Kent
Air pollution hits home
I’ve always been a runner. It keeps you fit. So on the day of Lyons’ Festival of Light, I got in a dawn run before hitting the office. As the day unfolded, though, and news of a pollution peak came in, I realised that my choice of a run had maybe not been the best. The day of light was also the day of smog.
The mayor of Lyons declared that, on the following day, only cars with number plates ending in an odd number would be authorised to use the roads.
This news hit home once again the need for us to solve the air pollution problem. It’s an exciting time as we have the opportunity to develop vehicles which make a difference.
In this spirit, the IMechE France Group organised an event last autumn on the subject of energy efficiency. The group visited the Renault Trucks headquarters. The firm’s current, Euro 6 range – even though using diesel engines – has attained incredible levels of fuel efficiency and low pollutant levels. François Savoye, director of energy efficiency strategy at Renault Trucks, told us that since 1990 CO2 has been cut by 30% and fine particle emissions by 97%.
As diesel will remain the most appropriate energy source for long-haul usage for some time, engineering to further improve fuel efficiency is ongoing through rolling resistance and aerodynamics improvements, terrain anticipation using GPS data, and platooning.
For more local and urban uses, other technology is now available, and the visiting group got their hands on a fully electric Maxity truck and a hydrogen fuel-cell van. All were impressed by the quietness and torquey acceleration of the Maxity.
As for running, I’ll wait until this pollution crisis is over. In the meantime, I’m off to trade in my 10-year-old internal combustion engine car for a Renault Zoe.
Peter Chadwick, Lyons, France